Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Exchange Rate

Mr. Dubs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has no target level for the exchange rate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I do not believe that the conditions exist in which a target level for sterling against one or more foreign currencies would be either practicable or helpful for policy. Account is taken of the exchange rate in interpreting monetary conditions.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Chancellor agree that the effect of the Government's policies is to keep the exchange rate higher than it would normally be, thus damaging employment and exports?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The exchange rate is determined by the market and stands at about the same level as when the Government came to office. Improvement of the prospects for exports depends upon the improvement of British industry's competitiveness. I am glad that that is being achieved.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware how welcome is his reply, since the pound has been slipping on the foreign exchanges? Does he agree that it is much better to allow that process to continue than to have far too high interest rates, which raise the costs to industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. It cannot be said too often that effective competitiveness is achieved not by devaluation, but by improvement in performance.

Dr. Bray: Did the Chancellor include an announcement of the effects on the exchange rate in the simulations that he gave to NEDC yesterday? Will he deposit the full print-out of those runs in the Library so that we may see all the fixes that he made? Will he ensure that an up-to-date version of the Treasury model is available for immediate public use so that we may see what he is up to?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, with his passionate interest in these matters, need have no fear that anything remarkable is taking place. He knows that the

Treasury model is updated from time to time, and arrangements are made regularly for those outsiders who know the structure of the model to be informed of such changes. I shall certainly consider his request to place in the Library the paper that was put before NEDC, but I cannot give any undertaking to go beyond that.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House will be glad that the Chancellor said that it would be unwise to have a target rate for sterling. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government have what one might call an unannounced target rate or range? Is it not also the case that the rate at which sterling is being maintained against principal competitors is still far too high? Will the Chancellor seriously consider the wisdom of boosting British exports and reducing foreign imports by achieving a far more realistic level of sterling than has hitherto prevailed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made it clear to the House on many occasions, most recently in my Budget Statement, that the Government have no target, undisclosed, secret or otherwise, for the exchange rate. Official intervention in foreign exchange markets is limited to smoothing and moderating excessive fluctuations to preserve an orderly market. I must repeat that it is not sensible to believe that export or import prospects for British traders can effectively be improved by devaluation. That is what experience tells us, and it was the experience of the Government of which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was a member.

Mr. Shore: Will the Chancellor go a step further on this? It is a little difficult, and nomenclature may be confusing us all. The use of the word "target" implies something rigid. Does the Chancellor agree that in this year's Red Book the exchange rate is one of the three or four principal indicators that guide Government policy? That being so, does he agree that if it is maintained at a given rate it is at least a quasi-target, despite what he has said?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman does not correctly understand the position. As I said in my original answer, account is taken of the exchange rate when interpreting monetary conditions, but it does not, in that or any other sense, constitute a target or a quasi-target.

Government Debt Interest

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast of the percentage of total Government expenditure that will go in meeting general Government debt interest in 1982–83; and how this percentage compares with the previous year.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): Measured on a gross basis, general Government debt interest payments are forecast to equal about 11 per cent. of general Government expenditure, including debt interest in 1982–83, compared with 11½ per cent. in 1981–82.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Recognising that public sector net debt interest has increased in the past 10 years from less than £450 million to more than £6,000 million and that the percentage increase in relation to


public expenditure has trebled, will he assure the House that it is Government policy to decrease that percentage, as it is a very large amount and a millstone round the necks of the British people?

Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the net figures. He is right in saying that this a burden of great severity. General Government gross debt interest is larger than any single public expenditure programme except social security and runs at £14·4 billion, which is £260 per year for every man, woman and child in the country. It is certainly right that we should seek to reduce that burden by ensuring that we do not borrow too much and to lower interest rates if possible.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the chief Secretary tell the House—if he does, it will be the first time—what amount within the figure that he has just announced represents the annual instalment of the cost of repaying index-linked national savings and now index-linked gilts, and how it is arrived at for the purposes of an annual instalment of public expenditure?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question to that effect——

Mr. Wainwright: I have.

Mr. Brittan: —I shall consider the answer.

Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that cost was not a factor in our response to the Falkland Islands situation, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's strategy on finance is not likely to be adversely affected in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to confirm that. As I said in the debate on the Finance Bill, and also on the radio yesterday, I see no reason for the Government's economic strategy to be affected by the operations in relation to the Falkland Islands. I also said that what is going on in that regard must be allowed to continue on an operational basis without current consideration of costs, which cannot be made in any event. Above all, however, I went on to say that the cost of what is going on will be met in a way that is consistent with the Government's economic strategy.

Mr. Shore: Inevitably, there will be costs. Will the Chief Secretary tell us a little more plainly how those costs are to be met if he intends to continue to operate a rigid policy of public expenditure control?

Mr. Brittan: Yes. As I said in the broadcast yesterday, how the cost is met will depend on its scale. If it proves not to be substantial, no problems will arise. If it proves to be substantial, it will have to be met in a non-inflationary way. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] That is what I said and I stand by it. It may be that revenues will be higher than anticipated, or the cost of other expenditure may be lower. Otherwise, one would have to look at other public expenditure programmes or taxation, and whatever combination is required to ensure that the consequence is not to damage our economic strategy will be taken.

Tax and Price Index

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated effect of the Budget proposals on the tax and price index; and how this compares with the similar effect of previous Budgets.

Mr. Brittan: The Budget proposals will directly reduce the TPI by ½ per cent. compared with what could have been the case if all duties and tax allowances had simply been increased in line with inflation. Previous Budgets of this Government have not had such an effect, because of the need to take action to restrain Government borrowing.

Mr. Hamilton: Do those figures include the substantially increased national insurance contribution? Even if they do not, is it not the case that in the past year, apart from the Budget increases, the margin between the TPI and the retail price index has been more than 3 per cent.? At a time when the TPI has risen by about 14·4 per cent. compared with last year, is it not disgraceful meanness by the Government to offer our nurses about a 4 per cent. increase in pay?

Mr. Brittan: The figure that I have given does not include national insurance contributions, as they were not part of the Budget proposals but were announced separately and earlier. With regard to the nurses, the fact that the Government have indicated a readiness to provide substantial extra sums over and above what had previously been provided shows that we recognise the special position of nurses and are prepared to put our money where our mouth is.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that high inflation has done more than anything to affect living standards, especially for the most vulnerable members of our society? Therefore, does not the decline in inflation augur well for the improvement of living standards in the long term?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree. I think that it augurs extremely well for the improvement of living standards in the long term. Those who have industrial muscle can always protect themselves against inflation. It is the Government's job to ensure that the more vulnerable people have similar protection.

Mr. Cook: For the record, will the Chief Secretary confirm that the increase in national insurance contributions will add a whole 1 per cent. to the TPI? Does he also accept that, as a result of the Government's increases in national insurance contributions, combined with their abolition of the reduced rate tax band, low-income taxpayers in Britain are now paying a marginal rate 7 per cent. higher than they paid under the Labour Government and higher than anywhere else in the Western world? As the TPI has been rising faster than the RPI since July 1980, will he admit that the Government have failed to translate their election pledges into action?

Mr. Brittan: As the hon. Gentleman complains about the burden of taxation, I can no doubt look forward to his assistance in ensuring that the burden of public expenditure which must be financed by that taxation is kept under control.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to some form of automatic indexation of the specific duties on tobacco and alcohol which make up part of both the TPI and the RPI?

Mr. Brittan: I am prepared to consider that, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the problems associated with it.

Mr. Horam: The Chief Secretary said that it was the job of the Government to protect the worst-off in society. Does he agree that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, the worst-off have become even worse off as a result not just of the last Budget but of the Government's whole economic policy since its inception?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that that follows from the last Budget. In terms of protecting the worst-off, what I have said is absolutely right. Many of the worst-off are people who cannot exercise industrial muscle to secure wage increases in line with inflation. The best action that the Government can take to protect such people is therefore to pursue a firm anti-inflation policy.

Economic Recovery

Mr Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been any further indications that the economy is now recovering from the recession.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been further signs that indicate a recovery in the economy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Recent additional signs that the economy is recovering include the further improvement in company profits in the final quarter of last year, the recent falls in inflation and interest rates and the much smaller rise in unemployment in recent months. March's CBI and Financial Times business surveys also point to improving business prospects.

Mr. Dykes: If the United States economy goes into a real depression, will that affect the British economy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is undoubtedly a connection between the prosperity of the United States economy and that of every other economy throughout the world, including ours. That is all the more reason for our seeking to follow the right economic policies.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Chancellor aware that the recently published report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service forecasts a continuing rise in unemployment and questions the Government's growth targets? Does he agree that that is far more likely to be an accurate forecast than the Government's optimism? Will he explain now, or certainly before the House rises for Easter, what effects he believes the present crisis in the Falkland Islands will have on the economy? If there are to be any repercussions in the shape of public expenditure cuts, will he give an assurance that housing, education and social services will not be hurt further?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman asked about the prospect for the economy. I note that the forecasts made by the Treasury in respect of likely growth and likely inflation are supported by the overwhelming majority of outside independent forecasters.
As for unemployment, I repeat what is in the White Paper. The prospects for unemployment can be improved sharply if we continue to achieve moderation in pay settlements.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about problems arising from the Falkland Islands dispute. I am confident that markets recognise that our determination and ability to pursue the economic strategy that we and they know to be right is in no way affected.

Mr. Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that any recovery of the economy after the present recession will be based firmly on low interest charges. Will he give the House his opinion of how interest rates will be moving, say in the next month?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not my practice to make forecasts or predictions of that kind, even for the sake of my hon. Friend, but the strategy embodied in the Budget Statement was designed to produce, as it did produce, lower interest rates and interest rates lower than they would have been otherwise.

Mr. Shore: Since consumer demand undoubtedly has been weakened further during the past year and as a result of the Budget, and since Government expenditure will be contributing nothing to any possible recovery, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say from what elements in the world economy or in the domestic economy he expects additional demand to derive during the period ahead?
I refer to a rather marvellous new phrase that has entered our economic vocabulary. It came from the Chief Secretary, who spoke last week about the "bounce back" of industrial production. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman forecast when recovery will be bouncing back to its level in May 1979?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the forecast made by the Treasury at the time of the Budget Statement, supported by outside forecasters, itself represents an improvement on that made in December. The main components there identified for further growth are the growth that will come from continued success in reducing the rate of inflation and also the prospect of some improvement in the world economy. The further factor is the actual, solid improvement by British industry, which is taking place. The right hon. Gentleman might like, for example, to applaud the fact that engineering export orders last year were higher than at any time since figures were first published in 1955.

European Community (Loans)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total loans from all European Economic Community institutions came to the United Kingdom during the period of full British membership to the latest available date.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): Between 1973 and the end of 1981 the United Kingdom borrowed about 24 per cent. of total Community loans, excluding those made to Italy and Ireland for balance of payments support.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear that there is here a valuable facility for getting long-term loans at favourable rates and that the United Kingdom economy is taking full advantage of this facility?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If my sums are correct, the United Kingdom economy has received from this source about £5,500 million over the last nine years. It has been of great value to the United Kingdom and continues to be so.

Mr. Spearing: If those loans did not come from the EEC, would they not have to be raised somehow from external or internal sources elsewhere? If they are made


at some preferential rates, is not the cash for that coming out of taxation? Does that not mean that the power to decide on these loans is taken from Britain and from the House, and handed with our taxes to someone in the EEC?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is rather a carping response. Of course the amount of Community loans and the way in which they are allocated is under the control of the Council of Ministers in the European Community, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As my hon. Friend obviously has studied these issues recently, can he say whether there was any special reason why the loans to the United Kingdom from the European Investment Bank of more than £400 million in 1980 were down to £143 million in 1981—the lowest figure in real terms for many years?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The reason is that, as a conscious act of policy, it was decided by the Government that there was not a good case for encouraging loans by the public sector involving an exchange risk guarantee and that it made more sense to have loans from the public sector within the United Kingdom economy.

Income Tax

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the basic rate of income tax could be reduced if the top rate were raised to its 1979 level.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The re-imposition of an 83 per cent. top rate of income tax would finance a reduction of less than one quarter of 1p in the basic rate.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to reductions in direct taxation? Does he agree that those statistics nail the cruel deception that we have so often from Opposition Members that almost everything that people want in any part of the spectrum can be financed by raising taxation to the level it was when the Government came to office?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I welcomed what he said at the conclusion of his question.
Any attempt to whoop up envious onslaughts on the higher paid could generate—[Laughter.] That is characteristic of the Opposition. I am glad that they applaud it in that way. Any attempt of that kind could generate negligible revenue for the reduction of taxes on the rest of the community. If, for example, the yield of the higher rates of tax which prevailed under the last Government were directed not to reducing the basic rate but to changing the tax allowance, it would be worth no more than about 14p a week to the basic rate taxpayer. It was entirely right for the Government to do what the last Government in some respects wanted to do but never had the courage to do, which was to sweep away crazy high-level direct taxes which were almost unique in the world.

Mr. Straw: If there is any deception, is it not of the electorate, which was promised lower income tax and national insurance deductions? That was the word used by the Prime Minister in her speech in Birmingham on 19 April 1979. She said that deductions from people's wage

packets would be cut at all levels. Instead, deductions have been increased at all levels, except for the very rich. The Government are practising the politics of greed.
Is not the further truth that the cumulative total of tax concessions to the very rich now runs at more than £3,000 million, taking account of those on income tax and capital taxes, and that the Government, instead of losing those revenues, could have used them to increase benefits to the unemployed or the living standards of the poor in work?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Almost every proposition contained in what was put as a question lacks a foundation in fact.

Mr. Straw: No.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The reality is that this Government, unlike the Opposition, are committed to the reduction of the burden of direct taxation. However, that has not been possible to the extent that we would like during a time when personal living standards rose very sharply as a result of the pay explosion that we inherited from the last Government, and during a time when we have been sustaining sensible spending programmes, as I am sure the Opposition would wish us to do. I hope, as a result of the repeated demonstration of the Opposition's enthusiasm for reductions and for lower taxation, to have their profound commitment to containing the growth of public expenditure.

European Community (Contributions and Receipts)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent calculation of the sums that the United Kingdom has contributed to the European Economic Community since the date of European Economic Community membership and of the sums received by the United Kingdom in grants and subsidies; and if he will express the totals as a ratio.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 1981 the United Kingdom had paid £8,799 million to the European Community budget and received £5,314 million. The ratio of payments to receipts is 5:3.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister realise that that shows that Britain has made a net contribution of well over £3,000 million, which works out at more than £1 million every single day? In view of this horrific drain on the United Kingdom economy, is there not an overwhelming case for seeking a permanent—not a temporary—solution to the budget structure that will ensure that we get a better deal for our country and our taxpayers?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Our objective in the negotiations that are now taking place, as my hon. Friend knows, is to arrive at a long-lasting solution. That is the Government's purpose, and I point out to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has been a great deal more successful in achieving a better balance in the budget of the Community than our predecessors were as a result of their so-called renegotiations.

Mr. Shore: Is not the truth, to re-emphasise the point, that Britain has paid a ransom of £3,400 million net for the privilege of belonging to a club that has exacted from us in trade and other matters very heavy costs? Is it not also a fact that but for the transitional arrangements negotiated at the beginning of the accession arrangements—the seven-year transitional period—the figures that we would


have been paying would be two or three times the current figure, which is already appallingly high? Is it not further a fact that unless the Government really resolve this question on a permanent basis and insist that we shall not go on making a disproportionate contribution, these figures, in a few years' time, will show an even more burdensome and adverse ratio?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I find that a curious supplementary question from a right hon. Member who, if my memory does not play me false, was a member of the Government who accepted the so-called renegotiated arrangements, negotiated by his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Shore: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I know that the right hon. Gentleman campaigned against it but, despite that, he was not inhibited from continuing as a member of the Government who had failed to achieve anything of any tangible or lasting value as a result of those negotiations. This Government have already achieved a settlement for our first two years of office that has produced refunds of £1,600 million to date, and we intend to achieve a further satisfactory and lasting settlement now.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not a fact, too, that the net real contribution in the last five years has been about one third or under one half of the figures promolgated in the original pre-entry White Paper, adjusted for prices?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend has a fair point. It does not alter the fact, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that we need a permanent resolution of the present balance of the budget to resolve the allocation of resources more satisfactorily than they have been resolved to date.

Mr. Hooley: Can the Minister tell me how I explain to the lower-paid workers in my constituency, who contribute between 40 and 50 per cent. of their incomes in taxation, why, over the years, they should have been giving a subsidy of £3,000 million from their taxes to the richest countries in the world?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman might try pointing out that all the evidence from the CBI, and all the other bodies that have examined this prospect, shows that if we had followed the policies that I believe are now advocated by the Labour Party—although they seem to fluctuate from time to time—which include withdrawal from the Community, many of those lower-paid workers in his constituency would be without jobs.

Economic Growth

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the basis for his assumption stated in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1982–83 that real output will grow by an average of 2½ per cent. a year in 1983–84 and 1984–85.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The basis for the assumption is the substantial moderation in the forecast rate of inflation to mid-1983, which is assumed to continue thereafter, together with the prospect of a gradual recovery in the world economy.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Chancellor not aware now, even if he was unaware when he read the Budget Report in which these assumptions were published, that so far as reducing inflation is concerned, all the other four major

forecasting units, on whose work he relied in an answer that he has just given, forecast a different trend of inflation—one that would start rising again in 1983–84? As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second basis for his assumption, a gradual recovery in world trade, does he not consider that that is very much under the shadow of the present trend of the economy in the United States, not to mention some other parts of the world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is true that in the past the more buoyant output that is in prospect has often been associated with a re-acceleration of inflation, but I am confident that further control of monetary growth, a responsible fiscal stance and continued moderation in pay settlements—which I know the hon. Gentleman regards as important—will enable progress against inflation to be sustained. Of course, as I said in answer to a previous question, the United States economy is one component that may affect the prospects of the world economy. On the other hand, to place on the favourable side of the balance there are the consequences that will follow from a fall in oil prices around the world.

Mr. Cook: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that half of his forecast increase in GDP is attributable to a remarkably convenient drop in the statistical adjustments? Even if that happy windfall materialises, the Select Committee, as the Chancellor will accept, concluded that unemployment will remain constant at over 3 million over the forthcoming three years. The Select Committee had the grace to be disturbed by that. Is the Chancellor also disturbed by that likely outcome over the next three years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Member knows, in all these matters statistical adjustments have to be made on a pattern compatible with previous analyses. As I have already said, other forecasts, quite apart from that made by the Treasury, also support the conclusion that output is likely to grow along the path suggested in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.
I am sure that the whole House shares the concern of the hon. Gentleman about the prospects of unemployment and the difficulty of the task of securing a sustained reduction, but the key to higher employment is, above all, improvement in industrial competitiveness, profitability and sustained moderation in pay bargaining. I hope to have the support of the Labour Party for all those three propositions.

Mr. Horam: Is not the real worry about these output assumptions over the next two years that they imply only a levelling-off of the present high level of unemployment around 3 million for the United Kingdom, school leavers excluded? That is during a period of recovery. Does not this mean that at the next downturn in the economy we shall move to unemployment higher than 3 million, which implies that we are in a treadmill of ever higher unemployment as a result of the Government's policies?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has studied this matter too carefully to believe the appendage to his last sentence. The problem of sustaining growth in employment in this country has been with us for a long time under successive Governments. The answer must lie with the improvement in the actual performance of those who create wealth in the economy—those who manage


British industry and those who represent the work force in pay bargaining. The prospects of improvement are likely to be fulfilled because we are already seeing substantial changes in their behaviour. Output and exports have been holding up much better than previous evidence might have suggested. It was common ground in the discussions of the National Economic Development Council yesterday that we need to go on securing those changes of behaviour if we are to secure the prospects for improved employment to which the hon. Member referred.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will delay the introduction of the taxation of unemployment benefit until he has restored the 5 per cent. abatement of that benefit taken in lieu of taxation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the proposal to abate unemployment benefit by 5 per cent. in lieu of tax was a particularly mean attack on those living on benefits, which could possibly be justified only as an interim measure? Is it not now essential that it is taken away once the benefit has come into taxation? Will the hon. Member remind the House what a married man with two children has to survive on when receiving unemployment benefit, and will he confirm that there are many hon. Members who will take their family out for a meal and spend on that one meal as much as a family man will receive in unemployment benefit in a week?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was made quite clear by my right hon. and hon. Friends when the abatement took place that this would be reviewed at the point at which the benefits came into tax. That review has taken place, with the result of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. I remind him that, from the very start of the benefits system in 1948, successive Governments have accepted the principle that unemployment benefit logically belonged within the tax net.

Mr. Straw: The Minister cannot wriggle out of this one. The Secretary of State gave a clear and categoric undertaking that this 5 per cent. abatement was in lieu of taxation. I again return to the Government's practice of the politics of greed. Is the truth not that, as a result of this 5 per cent. cut, the introduction of taxation and the abolition of the earnings-related supplement, most families entering unemployment will be £20 a week worse off than they would have been had Labour's system remained? Will the Minister also confirm that in every Budget the Chancellor has gratuitously given further tax concessions to the rich, well above those needed to maintain their real standard of living, at a cost far higher than the cost of restoring this 5 per cent. abatement?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Had the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the answers to earlier questions he would have gathered that the reductions in the confiscatory top marginal levels of taxation left by the last Government would make a derisory contribution to changing the fiscal balance. Let me make this absolutely clear, because the hon. Gentleman has made this allegation before. There was a firm commitment to restore abatement of the invalidity pension when that was brought into tax. As a token of our commitment to that, the abatement of the

invalidity allowance was restored at the last benefit uprating. We did not give a similar commitment to restore the abatement of other benefits, including unemployment benefit. We undertook to consider it, and that we have done, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security made absolutely clear.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that restoring the abatement would cost 10 per cent. of the revenue that comes from taxing the benefits? Should the House look to the Treasury, the DHSS or elsewhere for the review that will take place on this abatement?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As my hon. Friend knows, the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was that the matter would be kept under review. The House must recognise that there are conflicting claims at all times on the revenue. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Labour Party, which has constantly complained about the burden of the increased national insurance contributions on the employee. These are the sorts of benefits which that contribution goes to meet.

Employee Share Ownership

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will keep under review the possibility of further encouraging employee share ownership.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have already given substantial encouragement to employee share schemes.

Mr. Carlisle: Although I welcome the progress in profit-sharing schemes made under this Government, does not my hon. Friend recognise that in reality these schemes are confined to those who work for larger companies? Therefore, before the next Budget, will he seek ways to extend the advantages to all employees in the market sector so that, for example, small firms can start schemes and many more employees can feel that they have a stake in the success of their enterprise?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Government entirely share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for employee participation via share option schemes and are deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this subject. I have studied carefully the proposition that he put forward in his recent Adjournment debate, which, broadly speaking, called for an opportunity for employees in unquoted companies to participate in a share option scheme with the shares in a range of other companies. He will appreciate that that has a rather different purpose, in that it does not involve the employee directly in the fortunes of the business concerned, and it would create considerable problems between those who were entitled to benefit under such a scheme and those who were not.

Taxation Levels

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the progress of the economy before the end of the current financial year with a view to making further reductions in the level of taxation.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I keep the progress of the economy constantly under review.

Mr. Knox: In view of the necessity to boost demand and so reduce unemployment, will my right hon. and learned Friend review the economy with a view to cutting taxes sooner rather than later?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Budget, with the tax changes that it made, was designed to give encouragement to industry and employment consistent with the maintenance of a responsible fiscal framework. More tax cuts would have increased the PSBR and threatened confidence both at home and abroad.

PRIME MINISTER

Government Programme Priorities

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement outlining the priorities for action of Her Majesty's Government in the remaining part of the present Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Our priorities will remain the same as we stated at the outset of this Parliament, and as set out in more detail in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of each parliamentary Session.
With regard to the Falkland Islands, they remain British territory—no invasion can alter that simple fact. It is the Government's objective to see that the Islanders are freed from occupation at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Taylor: While welcoming that assurance, and hoping that the Prime Minister will show the same courage, determination and common sense that she has shown to date, may I urge her to make a special effort to review the various ways in which the scarce resources of the West are used to prop up the Soviet empire? For example, has she seen in this morning's Hansard a report of the fact that in 1981, EEC countries paid more than £800,000 a day in cash subsidies to ensure that the Russians received massive quantities of food and wine at knock-down prices? Will she be prepared to review that and the other ways in which we prop up the Soviet empire?

The Prime Minister: The figures mentioned by my hon. Friend are familiar to me. Let me make it quite clear that the Government are opposed to any form of special subsidy of Community food products exported to the Soviet Union, and we vote accordingly in the Management Committee, which decides these matters. That, as hon. Members should know, is done by majority, and not, I am afraid——

Mr. Shore: Why does not the right hon. Lady change it?

The Prime Minister: Because we cannot change these things except by total agreement. We are wholly against it and we express our views forcefully.
Our partners in the EEC have been, and are being, extremely helpful in respect of our problems in the Falkland Islands. Both President Mitterrand and Chancellor Schmidt have been in touch with me personally and are taking action to support us.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that national unity will have been greatly enhanced by the decision to shelve the Gibraltar initiative? Is she aware that

such unity can be sustained over the next few critical months by the Government's recognition of the simple wishes of British people, wherever they may be?

The Prime Minister: As to the Gibraltar initiative, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with the Spanish Foreign Secretary and a simultaneous statement is expected later today. I take note of the import of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the determination and resolve in respect of the Falkland Islands is shared not only in this House but throughout the nation? Would it not be appropriate at an early stage to broadcast to the nation on the Government's plans?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that determination and resolve are shared throughout our country and ever wider, because I think that throughout the Western world and beyond there is a realisation that if this dictator succeeds in unprovoked aggression, other dictators will succeed elsewhere. We are fighting a battle against that type of aggression, and once again it is Britain that is fighting it. I do not think that this is the appropriate moment for a broadcast to the nation, but we have not been short of broadcasts on this issue.

Engagements

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 April.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others throughout the day. This evening I shall have a meeting and a working dinner with Secretary Haig.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that the Falkland Islands exercise will go ahead regardless of cost? Has she any idea of what that cost will be—£100 million, £500 million, £1,000 million? How will it be paid for, and how does it come within the cash limits of the Ministry of Defence?

The Prime Minister: I wish to make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman that when this information first came to me—I said when it did—I took a decision immediately and said that the future of freedom and the reputation of Britain were at stake. We cannot therefore look at it on the basis of precisely how much it will cost. That is what the Contingency Reserve is for. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that, should we need to raise more money, that money will be raised in orthodox ways, and that it will not be done in an inflationary way.

Mr. Neil Thorne: A report has just been received to the effect that the Argentine reserve forces are being called up. Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider whether it will be necessary to make an announcement soon about our own reserves, particularly in view of the importance of providing effective cover in Europe, and particulartly in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: If we thought it necessary to do so, we should of course consider it, but I do not believe that it is necessary at the moment.

Mr. Foot: May I put to the right hon. Lady a question concerning the possible recall of Parliament to discuss


these matters, because, in the light of some of her replies now, and of what is happening, we may need to come back earlier than was previously decided? A curious statement was made by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday on this matter, when he referred to the need to keep the House informed of developments. He said:
I undertake to do that while the House is in recess".—[Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1045.]
The House should be informed about these major questions. The right hon. Lady may have to report to the House on her discussions with the American Secretary of State. Also, the House might need to be the first place to be informed about any statement on Gibraltar. There are a crowd of matters. I do not ask the right hon. Lady necessarily to reply now, but I put it to her that the House may well need to come back on Tuesday, instead of following the present arangements. I ask her to consider that. I also ask her to consider that although, of course, she will have the right to make the judgment on the matter, we may wish to make representations to her on the subject.

The Prime Minister: Of course I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to make representations. If it were thought necessary or strongly advisable to recall the House, we should of course do so.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for that undertaking, which I naturally understood that she would give, but may I press on her that if departures in policy or understanding arise, for example, from the visit of the American Secretary of State, the House of Commons must deal with the matter, and not some television programme?

The Prime Minister: Secretary of State Haig comes as a friend and ally. Between the United States and ourselves the word "mediator" has not been used, because we made our position perfectly clear. The troops must be withdrawn from the Falkland Islands as a first step.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind the rest of the world that the regime responsible for the invasion of the Falkland Islands did not do it to bring freedom and democracy to the Falklanders? Is not its record of oppression in Argentina a clear indication of the sort of people who are involved?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that regime has yet to bring freedom and democracy to its own people. I am afraid that we must have grave doubts about the way in which they will treat our people on the Falkland Islands.

Dr. Owen: In the light of the debate yesterday and the clear wish of all right hon. and hon. Members to unite and avoid endless post mortems, will the Prime Minister institute discussions between the parties about the form of an inquiry which will have to take place? The House should be given an assurance about that matter at the earliest possible moment so that we may look at the whole conduct of the affair up to the invasion of the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister: I am in some difficulty. There is a later question on the Order Paper, tabled by one of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished colleagues. Although, in my view, the precise form of the inquiry that the question asks for would not be appropriate, I think that some form of review is appropriate. We are considering exactly what form that review or inquiry should take and

what its timing should be. I am quite happy to consult on that matter. What I want to make clear is that we think that some form of review or inquiry is advisable under the circumstances, and we shall consult later.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, contrary to assertions that we are running down the Royal Navy, we are in fact spending more in real terms on the Navy than was spent in the last year of the Labour Administration, and that by 1985 we shall have even more fighting ships and submarines than now?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. It was raised very effectively in the debate last night. It should be more widely known, first, that we are spending more than £½ billion more in real terms on the Navy now than when we took office, and, secondly, that in the future we shall still be spending more on the conventional Navy, even when expenditure on modernising the strategic deterrent is at its peak, than we were in 1978–79. I also hope that it will be made abundantly clear that the two new aircraft carriers "Illustrious" and "Ark Royal" will be in operational service before "Invincible" and "Hermes" are disposed of.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reconsider her ministerial changes? Will she explain to the House why she chose to appoint a noble Lord from another place to the very sensitive post of Secretary of State for Trade, bearing in mind the debacle that has just taken place in the Foreign Office because it had a Minister who was answerable not to this place but to another place along the corridor? Will she look into this matter? Does she not feel that she is treating the Members of this Chamber with contempt?

The Prime Minister: Certainly not. A great deal of legislation and debate also takes place in another place, and it has been the custom under Conservative Governments to have three Members of the other place in the Cabinet. Quite apart from that, my noble Friend will be a very effective Minister indeed.

Mr. William Hamilton: No one has ever heard of him

Mr. Chapman: In view of the grave responsibilities that fall on my right hon. Friend at this time in our country's history, is she assured that she has the support of all the friends of our country? Will she bear that in mind in her resolve to seek a solution of the Falkland Islands problem and to put back this terrible aggressor on British lands?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I emphasise again the widespread support that we have had, not only from the European Economic Community and our NATO allies, but, as we would expect, from Commonwealth countries, and—even beyond that—from some of the countries in Africa and the Caribbean, which gave us positive support in the motion before the Security Council. I think that everyone clearly understands that unprovoked aggression must be stopped.

Engagements

Mr. Cunliffe: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunliffe: What Easter message can the right hon. Lady give the 3 million unemployed in this country? How does she suggest that they share the joys of Easter in the unprecedented atmosphere of despair and hopelessness in which they find themselves? In addition, is it not a scandalous indictment that for thousands of Easter school leavers their first job will be to sign on at an employment

exchange? Does the right hon. Lady not feel that that is a scandalous state of affairs and that she must bear some responsibility for this shameless episode? Does she still believe and insist that life is better under the Conservatives?

The Prime Minister: The best hope for future job prospects is to continue to try to reduce inflation. Some of our competitors have a much lower rate than we have—for example, Germany and others in the Community. We must also try to improve the competitiveness of British industry, which is already being improved substantially. As to the young school leavers who will come on the dole, that is precisely why we announced a big scheme of both work experience and training for them.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the week after next?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 APRIL—Supply (17th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the 1st to 17th Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1980–81, and on the 1st to 5th Reports in Session 1981–82, and the relevant Government observations, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 20 APRIL—Consideration of a timetable motion on the Employment Bill.
A debate on satellite and cable broadcasting, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 2I APRIL—A debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on the Government's Expenditure Plans 1982–83 to 1984–85, Cmnd. 8494.
Second Reading of the Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 22 APRIL—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 23 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Foot: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Leader of the House? All through the period that he and I have been in this House he has shown that he has full possession of the qualifications needed for the post. Would that I could say the same of most of the others. I wish the best of good fortune to the right hon. Gentleman.
I am sure that the Leader of the House heard the exchanges that I had with the Prime Minister a few moments ago. We must keep open the possibility that the House of Commons may be recalled immediately after the Easter holiday. That may be the best course in the interests of Britain as a whole and in the interests of informing the rest of the world about what we may be doing.
It is a great error on the part of the Government to proceed in the week that we return to carry the squalid and vindictive measure known as the Employment Bill a stage further. We shall, of course, bitterly oppose their proposal that it should be pushed through under a Guillotine.

Mr. Biffen: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind introductory remarks. My affection for the House has always been underpinned and inspired by those who have made this democratically elected Parliament the centre point of their politics. None has been a greater and more eloquent practitioner of that art than the Leader of the Opposition.
May I now move to the more difficult part of the right hon. Gentleman's question? I can add nothing to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about a recall of the House, but as I carry the responsibility as Leader of the House, I wish to say that if the position makes it requisite I shall ask Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Orders, that the House should be recalled during the period for which we are adjourned at Easter.
As to the timetable motion on the Employment Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has much more experience of such matters than I, but, by any standards, the fact that after 22 sittings and 92 hours the Committee is still at clause 4, as

yet unfinished, shows that there is some eloquence attached to the ill-directed epithets of "squalid and vindictive". The long-windedness needs some examination.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the emergency and our reliance on the ports of the United Kingdom, both naval and commercial, a review of our ports policy should be implemented? Would not the best way to do that be to set aside a day for a debate on the future port structure of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's point is truly important and may well be merged into the wider considerations touched upon by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). In the light of what I have said today, my answer must be that such a consideration cannot take place in the first week after the Easter Recess.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. To be fair to those who have been successful in the ballot for the Adjournment, I propose to allow questions to run until 10.45 am, which will allow half an hour for the first Adjournment debate instead of 45 minutes.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that industrial action is threatened by nurses and other low-paid ancillary workers in the National Health Service. Because of the Government's scandalous behaviour in limiting their pay increases to about 4 per cent., will there be an early statement on this matter to assure the nurses that they will receive much more generous treatment than they have been offered hitherto?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the question in the terms in which it has been put to me, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a planned debate on the Middle East did not take place? Is he aware that the House has not yet debated Israel's action on the Golan Heights or on the West Bank and that, for the first time for many years, British troops are stationed in the Middle East? Would it not be appropriate for the House to debate the Middle East as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, but such a debate must be put in the context of the other pressures that will inevitably be put upon the time of the House by the Falkland Islands affair.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the Leader of the House accept that recent events have highlighted the need for us to review the policy of arms sales to other countries? Does he further agree that we must not sell arms to oppressive dictatorships, especially those which may use them against our own people? May we have an early debate on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: The question of arms sales is kept under constant review. Although I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to have an early debate, there cannot be one in the week after we return from the Easter Recess.

Mr. John Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome a timetable motion on the Employment Bill, not least millions of trade


unionists who are looking forward to some curbing of the apparent immunity enjoyed by trade unions? I might not agree with the word "eloquence" and nor would my right hon. Friend if he had attended some of the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither do I. May we have succinct questions so that everyone has the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that Britain expects this legislation to pass on to the statute book and for it to be dealt with fairly but expeditiously.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have an early statement when Parliament reconvenes after the Easter Recess on the multi-fibre arrangement renegotiations? As the Leader of the House knows, this is a vital matter for the textile industry. I suspect that both sides of the textile industry will be disheartened by the appointment of a Secretary for Trade in the other place who will not be accountable to this House. After all, the textile industry is the second largest employer in the country.

Mr. Biffen: I know my successor and, in my judgment, he is one of the most outstanding business men to have come into politics. The Department of Trade, the Government and the nation are lucky to have his services. Negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement are now under consideration by the European Commission. I do not believe that it is appropriate that a debate should be held in the first week after we return from the Easter Recess.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend, who has shown himself to be a great House of Commons man, take a particular interest as Leader of the House in the Select Committees? Will he try to ensure that all the major Select Committee reports are debated within a reasonable time?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I do not think I have had any chance to escape taking a keen interest in the work of Select Committees. Of course, I will try to maintain the standards of my predecessor in the way in which the work of those Committees is considered by the House.

Mr. Frank Hooley: In the event that the Security Council is convened to discuss the serious issues in the South Atlantic, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a personal report to the House of its proceedings? Will he suggest that it is appropriate at this time that the Foreign Secretary should be there and not a civil servant?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. However, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary needs any guidance from me on the discharge of his duties to the House.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I, too, extend my sincere congratulations to the Leader of the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a considerable, if entirely unavoidable, sense of frustration among the large numbers of hon. Members who were excluded from the two debates on the Falkland Islands. That applies particularly to those who represent the great ports of Portsmouth and Southampton. Will he assure us

that as soon as we get back we will have an opportunity for a prolonged debate in which that sense of frustration may be expunged?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will have noted the business for the week when we come back. However, I have a feeling that he should not be too frustrated by what I have said this morning. It will be the anxiety in all parts of the House that the Falkland Islands affair should be properly debated in the House at each appropriate stage, having regard also to the operational requirements of our forces in that area.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his conditional reply to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the recall of the House? Will not the statement made after 10.30 pm yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence about the maritime exclusion zone have considerable repercussions, particularly in respect of the Foreign Secretary's advertised wish for maximum diplomatic activity? Does not that statement cut down the time that is available for such activity? Should not the House reconvene on Wednesday, come what may?

Mr. Biffen: No. I do not think that it would be helpful to go beyond what I judge to be my reasonable reply to the Leader of the Opposition which underlined what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As we are prepared to go to war on behalf of the 1,800 Britons in the Falkland Islands who wish to remain British, would it not be wise for any consideration of the White Paper on Northern Ireland to be deferred indefinitely? Many people look upon it as a discouragement to those loyal Britons in Northern Ireland who wish to remain British.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that my hon. Friend holds a clear and distinct view on this matter. However, I have also to observe that others feel that this is an important initiative on the part of the Government that they would not wish to see frustrated.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call two hon. Members from both sides of the House and take five minutes off the second debate.

Mr. David Winnick: As Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has a responsibility to the House and not just to the Government? An even stronger reason for the House to watch and be kept informed of every development in the present Falkland Islands crisis is that there is no confidence in the present Administration's ability in this matter. What type of inquiry is likely to emerge into the origins of that crisis?

Mr. Biffen: First, I would fail in my duty if I gave the impression that the Leader of the House is merely another Government spokesman.
Secondly, I cannot at this stage say what will be the form of the inquiry to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the danger which the Falkland Islanders will face over the recess, will the Government consider, through he Minister's good offices, the possibility of a clear formal


statement that, irrespective of the British Nationality Act and other legislation, the people of the Falkland Islands will be given British nationality, the right to settle, to work, to receive free medical treatment and to have a subsidised university education—all the privileges to which British subjects are entitled?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that while discussing next week's business I should be drawn to answer so fundamental a question.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Someone should answer it.

Mr. Biffen: However, I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those of my right hon. Friends who are responsible.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, with the loss of Lord Carrington from the Foreign Office and with the eyes of the world turned towards the Falkland Islands, there is a feeling in the Middle East that the Israeli occupying authorities in the West Bank—indeed, the Israeli Government—may wish to annex the West Bank? If that were to happen during this difficult time, will the Leader of the House give us an undertaking that an early debate will be arranged to discuss that important matter? It may be a new flashpoint in world affairs.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely fair point, echoing observations from one of my hon. Friends. I take the point, and will try to secure as early a debate as possible.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Pursuant to that question, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow the immediacy of the Falkland Islands crisis, important though it is, to draw time and attention away from the successful prosecution of Government policy in matters closer to home, perhaps rather less dramatic but equally important.

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend. He will have ample opportunity—if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker—in making that point in several of the debates which will arise in the first week after Easter.

Mr. John Silkin: May I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman? As he is the third Leader of the House that I have shadowed on the trot, I hope for a little stability at this particular moment.
May I ask one question that arises out of last night's debate? He may recall that I asked a rather important question of the Secretary of State for Defence about military spares going to the Argentine on O1 priority only 10 days ago. Will he arrange for a statement to be made on that matter immediately upon our return?

Mr. Biffen: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point. I am sure that he will wish to deal with it in an appropriate fashion.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Percentages and Exchequer Contributions) (Scotland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 29 March, be approved.

HOUSING

That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Question agreed to.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order [30 March],

That the draft Public Lending Right Scheme 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved—[Mr. Gummer.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

MARITIME NAVIGATION AID SYSTEMS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9478/81 on research into shore based maritime navigation aid systems and allied subjects and in view of the potential benefits to maritime safety and environmental protection supports the Government's intention to co-operate in the research and management of the project.

MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9779/81 concerning a proposed Council decision on a third concerted action programme on medical and public health research, and welcomes the Government's intention to support the proposal subject to an acceptable reduction in its size and cost—[Mr. Gummer].

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Departments (Administration)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not require 45 minutes for my Adjournment debate. If it will be of assistance to the Leader of the Unionist Party I will be quite happy to begin at one o' clock to allow a little more time for other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In the first few minutes of such a day the occupant of the Chair is, as a rule, playing with arithmetic and changing timetables. I will notify the House accordingly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his generous offer.
The Floor of the House is not necessarily the best place for examining the details of the internal structures of Government Departments or even their day-to-day functioning. In any case, the House and the Northern Ireland Committee have directed their attention to the need for changes in the mechanisms. As a result, there has been some streamlining of Departments. The Under-Secretary of State played a notable part in bringing about those changes and in amalgamating some of the Departments, although there are further amalgamations to come.
It should follow that there would be an improvement in the political control of the machinery of government. However, there is still room for improvement in the political control and direction of Departments. The improvements should be a continuous operation. The remedy will not be found in a great leap or in a dramatic initiative. Out of courtesy to the Government, one cannot entirely ignore the ideas that they have put forward in what was intended to be a best-seller—the past week's discussion paper. I shall confine my references to two passages in that publication which bear on the subject of our debate.
The first passage is entitled:
Scrutinising, Consultative and Deliberative Functions.
It is clearly set out that any Assembly would be authorised to debate, vote and report on the administrative and other actions of the Departments. The Secretary of State would also ask the Assembly to consider and report on specific issues other than those contained within—as we would say in Northern Ireland—transferred subjects. We are assured that all reports of such deliberations will be laid before Parliament.
Hon. Members suffer because far too many reports are laid before them. Even the most diligent find it difficult to skim through—let alone consider and evaluate—more than one-tenth of the reports that descend upon them in an avalanche from statutory, semi-statutory and outside bodies, which have no connection with the House. The mere "laying before Parliament" is unlikely to make great impact on a Parliament that still governs all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
In what form will the reports be presented? They could be presented by means of a Stormont Hansard. However, the procedures of the former Stormont Hansard were very different from those at Westminster. I fear that the Stormont Hansard might lapse back into its old bad habit of recording every jeer and jibe that punctuated even the most constructive speeches. The very nature of those obscure interjections would render the whole account unintelligible to hon. Members, who would be expected to take note of what had been said some 400 miles away.
The alternative might be to produce a summary of each debate. Who would edit it? Would the edited version be generally accepted as accurate? I have merely illustrated the difficulties inherent in the scrutinising, consultative and deliberative functions. They would do nothing to improve the administrative functions of the Northern Ireland Department.
I turn to the other suggested advance and to the section of the White Paper entitled "Committees of the Assembly." The idea that they would be similar to those set out in the Convention report is a fallacy. Mentior of that report reminds us that the committee system envisaged in the report was designed to function on the assumption that there would be a Government based on the same Assembly as the committees and that the Assembly, Government or Executive and committees would interact and be co-ordinated. The present scheme's weakness is that the suggested committees would operate in a vacuum. Their reports would go to the Assembly and if—that is a curious conditional—sent to the Secretary of State, would be laid before Parliament to provide more light reading for hard-pressed hon. Members.
As the reports will generally contain material critical, to say the least, of the Government of the day, they would not—given human nature and the outlook and practice of Governments—be over anxious to publicise that light reading. Those disadvantages will be dwarfed by the pit into which the Government will fall. The committees will be linked to the Departments with the intention of improving the administration of Northern Ireland Departments but they will not only fail to take a grip on the administration and to improve it, but will prove to be a source of continual friction with central Government, as represented by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
The Secretary of State and his Ministers cannot be summoned to appear before a committee. A committee considering how the administration of a Department might be improved would be unable to summon the Minister responsible—even if he was a junior Minister—before the committee and would also be unable to summon any civil servants in that Department. In the absence of a Cabinet or an Executive, the committees will more probably than not engage in open conflict with the United Kingdom Parliament—and not only with the Government—which will, in the long run, make the decisions.
If the proposal for a draft order is placed before a committee with nothing more to commend it than the explanatory document issued to up to 50 voluntary bodies and to those representing various interests, and if there is no Minister or civil servant from the Department to defend or clarify the proposal, the committee will rightly take the safe course and reject it in case it proves to be unpopular later. What will happen when the proposal comes be Fore the Northern Ireland Committee and is later debated on the Floor of the House? Will the Government decide that, although the Northern Ireland Assembly or one of its


committees is opposed to the order, a three-line Whip should be applied to force it through? What will the Government's moral position be if they are seen by the world to be acting in defiance of the express wish and will of a freshly elected Assembly in Northern Ireland?
Such nightmares influenced many hon. Members—as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker—during our lengthy debates on the Scotland Bill. I refer to the nightmare of a built-in recipe for conflict between two elected bodies; in this case, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and an elected Assembly and its committees.
I am grateful to those hon. Members who have attended the debate, although they do not have a duty to do so. I am also grateful to the two Ministers for their presence on the Front Bench. Those of us who are concerned with improving the administration of Northern Ireland Departments are duty bound to ask whether the so-called consultative process is of any value. Can it play any real part in the machinery of government? Alternatively, are we simply adding a fifth wheel to the coach? I have concentrated on the problems of the political control and direction of Government Departments during what is hopefully termed the first stage of the Government's suggested plans. I have deliberately done so because I do not believe that an Assembly will ever go beyond that stage.
I am not alone in holding that view. Virtually every party, newspaper and citizen believes that the suggested plan is unworkable. It is not a question—and this is unique—of various parties in Northern Ireland and in the House having reservations about some parts of the plan. It is not even a question of one party disliking the plan because it feels that the plan is weighted and biased against it. What the parties have in common, and virtually the only objection that they have voiced, is that the plan is unworkable. What astonishes many of us—and this has been reflected in various comments about the document by colleagues in the House and for publication—is that the Government are proceeding along these lines in defiance of the wishes of virtually every party in Northern Ireland, and of every item and element of the media in Northern Ireland which is giving expression to the views of the citizens.
In all conscience, the outline of the White Paper, which was leaked over a period of weeks, was improbable enough but any chance of its survival was destroyed by the authors of paragraph 30(c). This is relevant to today's debate. It states:
The Assembly will also be asked to recommend to the Secretary of State arrangements under which the whole or part of the range of legislative and executive responsibilities previously transferred under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 could be exercised by the Assembly and by a devolved administration answerable to it.
That same fatal requirement was also embodied in the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention 1975, which was designed and introduced to improve the administration of the Northern Ireland Departments. It was charged with the same duty of reaching an agreement and then recommending to the Secretary of State what course of action he should take. That has been repeated in not dissimilar words in paragraph 30 of the White Paper.
The convention had the effect of forcing the parties to go to the electorate with manifestos that set out what each would demand if they were elected. It was not surprising

that, following the elections, there were as many policies as there were parties, nor was it surprising that people wanted different and contradictory structures. I am tempted to conclude that the Northern Ireland Office was infiltrated by a saboteur who slipped paragraph 30 to the printers when no one was looking.
I turn to what I hope will be regarded as a constructive contribution to our deliberations in the next few critical weeks. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have wisely decided to seek the views and the advice of Parliament before going firm on legislation. We applaud the soundness of that decision which is in their interests, in our interest and in the national interest. They have recognised the magnitude of the events in the South Atlantic and have realised that British attitudes will never be the same again. During the last seven days the message has been loud and clear from both sides of the House that a simple desire to remain British is the only qualification to secure the protection of the Crown and Parliament. Gone for good is all talk of the Argentine dimension, the Spanish dimension and the Irish dimension. In this more wholesome atmosphere, the Official Unionists look forward to co-operating with fellow Members of the House in assisting the Government in designing sensible and workable methods of governing our part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It is a matter of great regret to many Conservative Members that the Government have chosen yet again to sponsor a system of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Devolved government was not exactly a howling success when it was tried in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1972. That, at least, is what we have all been told by the very people who are now the protagonists of devolved government in Northern Ireland. We are told that the Stormont system is one to which we cannot return, yet it was a system of devolved government that lasted for 50 years.
As a concept, and as a system of government, devolution was rejected by the voters in the referendum in Wales and, to put it mildly, not endorsed by the voters in the referendum in Scotland. So why on earth have the Government, whom I regard as normally sensible, with a good idea of reality in British politics, resorted once again to this failed, unpopular and unworkable system as a supposed remedy for the ills of Northern Ireland? It is not possible to draw a line around Northern Ireland and say "For you, there will be a special system of government. You will have a different level of legislative action. Your politicians will be confined for the most part within the circle." If there is one part of the United Kingdom where such a remedy is bound to produce trouble, it is the part where communal tensions and sectarian differences are the greatest. A homogenous society could possibly work a system of regional devolution within the United Kingdom, but the society in Northern Ireland, by its very character, cannot possibly successfully work a system of devolved government.
Yet the alternative is there. It is plain to see. I fear that the reason why it has not been adopted is that the Government—again perhaps uncharacteristically—are not prepared to take the courageous way forward, because of criticism and opposition from the Irish Republic and from the United States. The alternative system for building up democracy in Northern Ireland—in so far as it is alleged


that democracy is not at present complete in Northern Ireland—is to replace the upper tier of local government that was withdrawn during the constitutional reforms in the 1970s.
There should be a tier of local government equivalent to county councils in England and Wales and to regional authorities in Scotland. Why should there not be such a system of government in Northern Ireland? They are the proper bodies for politicians who seek to represent their people and to take decisions on their behalf. For those who aspire to membership of our national institutions and of the House they would be appropriate and serve as a training ground. There is a vacuum in Northern Ireland, which has been created by the Government's refusal to carry out the terms of their election manifesto, which virtually promised a system of local government based on regional councils. The manifesto said that one or more regional councils would be established. I regret that the Government have not been prepared to go ahead with that proposal.
We are told that the reason is opposition to the implementation of the proposal. That represents a disgraceful surrender to pressures from outside the United Kingdom. Today, when we are prepared to use force to preserve the right of 1,800 Britons to remain British in the Falkland Islands, we must re-examine the Northern Ireland position.
The problem appears to be that well over 1 million Britons—and the best of the Britons—want to stay British and yet this Government, I am ashamed to say, proposes for them a system which we all know will not work, but which is designed to lead the people in the long run to accept the idea that some form of association with the Irish Republic is desirable. It is not desirable. It is not consistent with the Government's firm and courageous stand on behalf of the rights of Britons in the Falkland Islands. Many more Britons are involved in Northern Ireland. It is right and democratic that their wishes be accepted. The Government should therefore abandon their silly plans for devolution.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talked of political realism. The tragedy is that we all think that we are political realists, but disagree about what the reality is. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the previous form of government in Northern Ireland was not successful from 1922 onwards. That can lead one to different interpretations of political realism, one of which is that the nature of a political unit there might not be of a type that is stable and secure and might need to be changed in a fundamental way. That is one reason why the Labour Party concluded that a united Ireland, with consent, safeguards and a host of other securities, was the way forward.
Over the years I have tried hard to understand the Official Unionist Party's position, and I can appreciate its anxiety. The people of the United Kingdom as a whole will expect the parties in Northern Ireland to give a careful and constructive response to the Government's proposals. Nothing less should be given to them. I say openly and without hesitation that the proposals do not excite me massively, but nor do they particularly disappoint me. I do not think that they take us any further down the "United Ireland with consent road", along which I should like to travel, but nor do they take us in the opposite direction. The proposal is for a convalescence period for the body

politic in Northern Ireland during which local politicians can begin to practise conventional, normal politics, which I assume underlies the Secretary of State's aims. The people of the United Kingdom as a whole would be disappointed and concerned if the people of Northern Ireland did not give a fair wind to that proposal.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman speaks of conventional and normal politics. Is not conventional and normal politics in this country democratic politics? Does that not mean that the majority should rule, and is that not excluded by the proposal?

Mr. Soley: I do not think that it is excluded, but that depends upon one's definition of majority. The boundaries of Northern Ireland are not regarded by all parties as being designed to encourage and develop democracy. Thai is part of the problem. The hon. Gentleman understands that argument, although he might not agree with it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I welcome the opportunity to reply to the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). He shares my unqualified admiration for the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which has had a difficult task in the last 10 years of direct rule. Northern Ireland civil servants have conducted that task fairly and extremely well. Hon. Members have their own views about the giving of honours to civil servants, but Northern Ireland civil servants have earned their honours in the last 10 years.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South made a probing and wide-ranging speech. It was preparatory to the remarks that he will make on the debate on the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made equally probing and questioning remarks. He has always had a coherent and highly developed view about what he believes should happen in Northern Ireland. I respect his view. It is logical, when based on the assumptions that he makes.
The Government have considered that view carefully but, regrettably from my hon. Friend's view, they have rejected it. The views of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Antrim, South will be taken into account by the Government in the coming weeks and months during the debates that we shall have. We shall hear again the voice of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) who has been translated from the Front Bench back to the Back Benches. His voice will be equally effective on the issue from wherever in the House it is heard.
It is important that the House should have the Bill in front of it when the debate on the White Paper takes place. Following his statement on the White Paper "Northern Ireland: A Framework For Devolution" on 5 April, the Secretary of State told the House that he would welcome a debate on the White Paper before we debate the Bill which gives effect to the Government's proposals. The necessary arrangements are being made.
My right hon. Friend also believes that since the Government's proposals on the devolution of powers require important amendments to existing legislation, it will be for the convenience of the House if the Bill is presented in the week following the Easter Recess so that it can be taken into account in the debate on the White


Paper. There is no substitute for having the Bill in front of us in black and white so that we can make reasonable and reasoned remarks on the White Paper.

Mr. Molyneaux: What is the purpose of the debate on the White Paper and in what way can hon. Members influence the Government's thinking on the legislation if it is already in print?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House much longer than I and has much greater experience, to which I defer. He knows how Bills are amended during their many stages. I have no doubt that that will happen to this Bill.
The hon. Member reminded us of the recent debate on the order which provides for the establishment of the new Department of Finance and Personnel. During that debate I made two points, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I resist the temptation to read from my speech, great though the pleasure would be for me. The first point that I made was that the Government are absolutely determined to ensure that the implementation of policies and the running of Government in the Province is as efficient and effective as possible during direct rule, for however long direct rule lasts. That is critically important.
The changes in departmental structure made on 1 April and changes in relation to the Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services which are the subject of consideration in the House, are designed to try to promote more effective administration.
I am sure that every hon. Member would like to share in reaching the goal of more effective administration and better resource allocation. I hope that that feeling will be shared by members of a Northern Ireland assembly, should the House decide that such an assembly be set up.
The second point that I made during that debate was that the Government had no wish to see direct rule continue indefinitely. That is clear and it has been reiterated time and again by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The publication of the White Paper on Monday underlines the earnest wish of the Government to find ways to make it possible to transfer to the people of Northern Ireland greater responsibility for their own affairs and greater power over their own affairs. I shall search through my papers, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did through his in yesterday's debate, to find what my right hon. Friend said in his statement. It was as follows:
The proposals in the White Paper are fair and flexible. Like all proposals for Northern Ireland they involve risk and controversy. The Government in no way underestimate the magnitude of the task or the strains any proposals will have to bear. But they also offer an opportunity which, with time, and patience and the continued commitment and good will of Parliament, may be exploited to the advantage and relief of all the people of Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 5 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 693.]
I hope that that may be so. In the meantime, the Government are continuing the process of refining the structure of Departments in the Province so that better government can continue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), when Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about 18 months ago started determined to ensure that he made a provision in the government of the Province for better government there.

Of the many monuments that my right hon. Friend left, such as his triumph over electricity prices and the electricity tariff in the Province, the process of the amalgamation and refining of Departments will be recognised for many years.
That is all that I wish to say about the present situation of the Departments in Northen Ireland. I entirely recognise that as we have introduced the White Paper and as we are soon to present a Bill, it was proper for the hon. Member for Antrim, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North to ask about what might happen to Northern Ireland Departments should there be rolling devolution, partial devolution or full devolution.
To a certain extent the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South were hypothetical, but probing. I hope that it will be appreciated that to a certain extent my answers must be hypothetical. This is not a full dress debate on a White Paper. I do not have a great deal of time in which to attempt to answer all the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. Of course, we shall take note of what has been said in the debate today. It is important for everyone in the House to set any analysis of the points raised so cogently by the hon. Gentleman against the present position in Northern Ireland Departments.
The Northen Ireland Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Environment, Finance and Personnel, Health and Social Services and Manpower Services administer those matters which under the Constitution Act 1973 are neither excepted nor reserved. Hon. Members who are expert in the government of the Province will realise what those terms mean. In other words, the Departments look after all transferred matters.
Under direct rule, the system under which we are working at the moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the efficient conduct of government by all those Northern Ireland Departments. However, what happens in practice is probably familiar to hon. Members. My right hon. Friend delegates responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the Departments to junior Ministers. An important analogy can be drawn between that and what might happen under partial or full devolution. The Minsters in their turn represent the interests of their Departments to the Secretary of State.
The tradition of devolved government in the Province is still sufficiently strong for the staff of any Department and for the Northern Ireland public to look upon the appropriate junior Minister as the Minister responsible for that Department's functions. Although in strict constitutional terms that is a fantasy, it has worked extremely well in practice, although it has no firmly grounded statutory basis. It has worked out in that way because of the way in which Members of Parliament and the public have chosen to treat junior Ministers and the way in which Departments have responded to the set-up with which they have had to deal over the past 10 years.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South reasonably asked what would happen under the constitutional proposals. Following the election to an assembly, should an election take place, which it is up to the House to determine, the Northern Ireland assembly will monitor and report on the policies and activities of Northern Ireland Departments.
Prior to any devolution an elected assembly, for the first time for many years, will have the opportunity to influence and monitor directly Northern Ireland Departments.
I understand that it has been frustrating for the 12 Members of Parliament representing the Province not to have a greater say and influence other than that which they gain through writing letters to and seeing Ministers in the Province and raising questions in the House. For the first time for many years, the Northern Ireland assembly, should it be set up, will have an opportunity to influence and monitor the Northern Ireland Departments.
A requirement will be laid upon the assembly to establish individual committees that correspond to each of the Northern Ireland Departments. The purpose of the committees will be to enable the 78 assembly members to monitor and scrutinise the work of the Departments, to influence the development of policy and to question priorities, expenditure and all the issues of Government.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South raised the important issue of the relationship between the reports arising from the committees and their being laid in the House. The reports from the committees will go to the assembly. If the assembly decides that they go forward, it is entirely up to the assembly whether those reports should be sent to the Secretary of State. It is within the assembly's remit, under the terms that we hope to bring forward, to send the reports to the Secretary of State. If the reports are sent to the Secretary of State they will be laid at Westminster, among all the other reports and papers that are endlessly laid at Westminster and which cause us considerable problems in determining and examining them.
Ministers responsible to Parliament will not sit in the assembly, but assembly Departmental committees will be

able to discuss Departmental issues with Ministers. They will be able to discuss issues represented to Ministers with Ministers and also perhaps with officials. They might invite Departments to provide information.
We have all seen the growth of the power and standing of the new Select Committees in the House. While there is not an exact analogy between the Select Committees and the committees of the assembly, that is one way in which the committees of the assembly could develop. We hope that positively in the first stage, should the assembly be set up, that is precisely how they will develop. To be frank, as someone who was not born or brought up and who is not resident in the Province, I would welcome such a probing analysis by assembly committees over areas for which I am responsible. I am certain that that would help to make Ministers as responsive to local opinion as possible.
The assembly will not have a formal power to summon Ministers responsible to Parliament or their officials. It will not necessarily have access as of right to Departmental papers. However, I believe that in practice Ministers will co-operate closely with the assembly and with its committees. There is no question of starving the committees of the information that they will need to do their work properly.
In conclusion, I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, South for the fact that I have not had time to answer the other major points that he put forward. I know that this subject is one to which he and other hon. Members will return, to probe and question in debates on the White Paper and in subsequent debates. I look forward to those debates, all the more so because I know that they will be conducted in the same moderate and probing way as this morning's debate.

A43 (Bypasses)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) I should explain, as I believe he was not in the House earlier, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) gave up 15 minutes of his time so that this debate could proceed at length. The right hon. Member's speech is not being curtailed.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your statement and I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his generosity.
In directing the attention of the House to this subject I speak mainly on behalf of people living in South Northamptonshire, particularly those living in the two towns of Brackley and Towcester and the two large villages of Blisworth and Silverstone.
I begin by making a brief reference to the general context of Government spending on road improvements and especially on bypasses. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport replies he will be able to put this important local issue into that wider context.
The latest Government statement on public expenditure shows that every year about 30 towns or villages are to be liberated, so to speak, from the environmental damage and additional dangers caused by major traffic, through bypass schemes or similar arrangements. I congratulate the Government on achieving that rate of progress in difficult economic times. Nevertheless, we should be doing even more. I say that fully recognising the need for public expenditure restraint.
My own view can be put in a nutshell. The Government should be tough on public expenditure—tougher than they have been in many departments—but the country badly needs increased public expenditure on capital projects, especially on capital projects affecting the building and civil engineering sides of the construction industry. For national reasons I hope to see an expansion of existing plans.
I have no time to develop the arguments in detail but I shall give them under separate headings. First, it is an inescapable fact of economic history that a country does not have economic growth unless its construction industry is growing. Secondly, road improvements are badly needed for the efficiency of all our industries that move goods by road. That applies to a great proportion of our industry. Thirdly, road improvements will pay an important dividend in that there will be fewer people killed and injured in road accidents. Fourthly, we should consider the time saved and the relief of wear and tear on the motorist. The majority of our citizens are motorists, or travel in motor cars. Fifthly, we need more bypasses for the sake of an improved environment for people living in the towns and villages of our countryside. That all adds up to a much stronger case than some of the more fashionable arguments we hear for the expansion of other parts of public spending.
Having made that general point, I turn to the situation affecting the A43 in my constituency. This important trunk road travels north-east from Oxford to Northampton and

beyond. As the local Member of Parliament I am concerned with about 24 miles of the road from the Oxfordshire-Northamptonshire border to Northampton.
That part of England has been a national crossroads, so to speak, for traffic flows ever since the industrial revolution. Many people have travelled on its roads, canals and railways in all directions. The A43 is an extremely busy road and it is becoming busier every day. Statistics show that last year about 11,000 vehicles a day passed along the stretch of the A43 to which I refer. Nearly one-quarter of these were heavy vehicles, which badly affect the four communities concerned.
That flow of traffic has grown and is still growing. It has grown, among other reasons, because the whole area had has an expanding population. Northampton has expanded considerably and taken large numbers of people from the London area. Daventry, a mile or two to the north, is an expanding town taking overspill from Birmingham. A few miles to the south, Milton Keynes has been rapidly expanding. Virtually every town and village in that part of the country has expanded in recent years. That expansion is continuing, and will continue to do so into the immediate future.
These four communities have naturally been pressing for a bypass for many years. The state of play was set out for me in a helpful letter to me from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 4 January—helpful, that is, in giving information but not as helpful as I would have wished on the progress he indicated. My right hon. Friend pointed out that during 1981 routes for bypasses had been agreed for Brackley and Towcester. He was hoping that construction of the Brackley bypass would start by the beginning of 1985. He informed me that if funds were available he was hoping that construction of the Towcester bypass would begin about six months later.
As regards Blisworth, the proposal had not been on the active list—I do not know if that is the correct departmental term—but it was restored to the active list as part of the White Paper following the Armitage proposals. I am grateful for that. However, the Secretary of State points out that its planning is at a much earlier stage than Brackley or Towcester and it is unlikely that construction will start before 1987. My right hon. Friend goes on to say that Silverstone is on the list of schemes for which work has been suspended until there is a reasonable chance of fitting them into the programme. He does not think that construction can start during the present decade. My basic argument is for faster progress on all four of these schemes. I shall briefly refer to each of them.
Brackley has rightly been recognised as having the most urgent need. Its traffic problems are horrific. It is a historic town of great charm with a population of about 6,000 people. Its main street is one of the most impressive in the country with about 60 listed buildings along the frontages of the main street. However, its charm is spoiled by massive traffic problems. The traffic is dense, crowding the town and creating considerable delays and making it unsafe and difficult to cross the road.
After local government reorganisation the town retained its town council and mayor. I receive constant messages from them and from other organisations and individuals in Brackley about the urgency of the matter. Those of us who care for our historic towns wish for them to be given such relief. A survey carried out recently showed that three-quarters of the traffic passes through Brackley and so would use the bypass.


The problems of Towcester are similar, but other factors may aggravate the situation. The A5 also passes through Towcester. The junction of the A5 and the A43 is greatly congested, particularly at peak travel periods. A large proportion of the population travels considerable distances to work. Again, the town has charm and a history and to a large extent is spoilt by traffic congestion, particularly when it builds up in the main street. Again, I have constant demands from local people for early action.
Blisworth and Silverstone are large villages. Both are accident black spots. At the time of and just after the general election, when I first represented the area in Parliament, there had been some serious road accidents, and I was presented with a petition for a bypass. Local residents posted signs stating "This is Silverstone village and not Silverstone race track. Please slow down." I fear that the message is not heeded as much as it should be.
I quoted the Secretary of State's letter which pointed out that the plans were at an early stage. I hope that the Department will take account of the view of councillor Bill Morton, who was the distinguished chairman of the county council transportation committee until the unfortunate election of last May. His view is shared by a number of people in the county. In a memorandum that he sent to me and others, including the Department, he states of the A43:
This major trunk road should be connected to the MI at the Rothersthorpe Service Area and follow a line to provide a bypass for Milton Malsor and Blisworth on the west side.
There is a strong case for that approach, which should be
carefully considered before the final plans are put forward.
This part of the A43 is the worst stretch of road for accidents in the county, with the exception of one or two road junctions in the middle of towns such as Northampton, where the accident rate per yard is higher. In the past three years there have been eight fatal accidents, 32 accidents resulting in serious injury and 26 in light injuries. A map of accidents shows a close relationship between the black spots and the places identified as requiring bypasses.
In a recent letter to me the county surveyor mentions the fact that the police committee has had serious discussions about the accident rate on the roads. He states:
As can be seen on the map, there is an overwhelming case on accident grounds for Brackley bypass and strong cases for the improvement north of Silverstone and Blisworth/Milton bypass. There is no doubt that these and other improvements listed will bring about a substantial reduction in accidents.
I have been in touch with the south Northants branch of the National Farmers Union. The provision of bypasses could cause problems for individual farmers, but the NFU strongly supports the improvements. It has made representations to the Department about the compensation available. The provisions for financing of fences when there is a new motorway are better than when there is a new trunk road development.
I realise that the problem is partly one of resources, but it also concerns procedures. Plans must be prepared, there must be notification and there may be inquiries and so on. In Brackley and Towcester a great deal has been done already. Another letter from the county surveyor makes
two points:
If the Section 10 and Compulsory Purchase Orders were progressed at the same time, it is my view that schemes could be brought forward some six to nine months.
I hope that that point will be considered. More fundamentally, the county surveyor suggests that this

road, along with others, might sensibly be managed by the county council instead of by the Department. That reflects the views of the Select Committee on Transport. The county surveyor states:
From the experience in my Department in constructing bypasses on county road schemes, it would be possible to trim 1–1½ years at least off the timescale, allowing a start at Brackley in late 1983.
I hope that both suggestions will be seriously considered.
We cannot sensibly consider the future of the A43 without relating it to the proposal to extend the A40 from Oxford to Birmingham. That scheme is put forward by the Department as part of its main trunk road programme from 1984. The proposed route would cut through the southwest corner of my constituency not far from the communities that I mention. The greater part will then proceed northwards close to but outside Northamptonshire.
The proposed road will have a profound effect on traffic flows in Northamptonshire. It will benefit most of the county. The county council welcomes the M40 proposals. Flows on the M1, which is badly overloaded, would be reduced. For my constituents and others it would provide an alternative, and in many cases better, route south towards London or north towards Birmingham and the Midlands. But there is concern about the effect on traffic flows on the western side of the county with people entering the proposed motorway. The A43 is one road that would be most affected. The county council wants, as far as possible, to encourage the additional traffic to use the A43 provided that it is improved in time. That is the crucial point. Other roads in the area are less able to take the burden. I am thinking of the A361 and a network of minor roads north and west of the A43 going through village communities, which should not be subjected to additional traffic.
I emphasise as strongly as I can that all this reinforces the urgency of improving the A43. It is vital to achieve those bypasses, and, perhaps, other improvements to the A43 such as additional carriageways, although I have not discussed that in detail. Those improvements should be achieved before the extended M40 is in operation. Otherwise, all the problems to which I have referred will be greatly aggravated.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is a strong case for examining the programme again and seeing whether it can be speeded up.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) on securing this debate. I know that the subject is of great importance to him.
The Government's recent White Paper on the trunk road programme gave particular priority to bypasses. Our system of motorways has done much to reduce transport costs and to get drivers and freight on to roads that have been designed with modern traffic conditions in mind. As the motorway system nears completion, we shall be able to turn more and more to bypass schemes such as those about which my right hon. Friend has spoken. Bypasses are usually the simplest way of dealing with the environmental problems caused by traffic, especially lorry traffic, using roads through small towns and villages that were often laid out in medieval times.
Our experience has been that people living in towns that have been bypassed find life much more pleasant when through traffic is removed. That is, of course, what we expect. A great deal has already been achieved. Many thousands of communications have been bypassed by new roads.
More than half of the historic towns on trunk roads in England and more than two-thirds of towns with populations above 10,000 have been relieved of through traffic, for example, as well as countless smaller communities. But we are keen to deal with the remaining problems as quickly as possible and we have a substantial programme of bypasses in hand.
Following the Armitage report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the White Paper, "Lorries, People and the Environment", that more new schemes had been added to the programme. Six schemes had been promoted from the reserve list to the main programme. Of special interest and, I hope, pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, was the fact that work was to be resumed on the A43 Blisworth bypass.
The Government's 1981 White Paper went on to announce the addition of yet more bypasses to the programme and the resumption of work on a number of other schemes. About 120 specific bypass schemes are planned at present, worth about £760 million. This, of course, covers only trunk roads—local authorities are planning many others for their roads. By the mid-1980s, more than half of the schemes starting will be bypasses.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the number of bypasses on which we have stopped design work for the time being. When we came to office, we found that far more road schemes were being designed than we could ever have hoped to start, even if the country could have afforded a large increase in the resources going to road building.
We decided, therefore, to stop design work on about 100 schemes which had little prospect of going ahead in the near future to free money and manpower to concentrate on schemes that could start. Our plans have proved realistic. We have got most of our schemes under way on time. There was some scope for increasing the number schemes being worked up, so in the White Paper on Armitage and in the roads White Paper in February we announced that we were restarting work on some. In all, nine schemes, eight of which are bypasses, were restarted, including the scheme for Blisworth. We are keeping the programme under review, and we shall pick up work on the schemes that are still suspended as soon as we can.
The Government made it clear from the outset that one of the main aims of our trunk roads programme was to provide bypasses to relieve our towns and villages of the problems of congestion, noise, accidents and environmental damage caused by traffic, particularly heavy lorries. The Government have pursued that aim with vigour and will continue to do so. Although we are giving priority to bypasses, that does not mean, I am afraid, that we can press on immediately with every scheme. The Government's priority above all else—except for the immediate problem of the Falkland Islands—remains economic recovery. We must live within our means and the road programme must play its part.
That means that we cannot do everything we would like to at once. The Government's overriding priority must be to secure economic recovery. Reducing public spending has a major part to play.
This Administration has maintained spending on trunk roads at roughly the same level in real terms as when we came to office because we recognise the importance of capital investment in infrastructure. This year we shall spend about £700 million on maintaining and improving the trunk road system, and local authorities will spend about £1,200 million on the roads for which they are responsible. But I am afraid that there will be no scope for increasing spending until we have got the economy right.
My right hon. Friend has argued well and eloquently his case for building more quickly bypasses for Brackley, Towcester, Blisworth and Silverstone. He has pressed his case on behalf of his constituents on many occasions. We accept without any reservation the need for those bypasses and we shall build them as soon as we can.
As my right hon. Friend described, the A43 trunk road is a cross-country route running north-east to south-west across the South Midlands between Stamford, where it connects with Al to the north, and Oxford, where it connects with A34 to Southampton. It traverses the whole of Northamptonshire, linking the major industrial towns of Corby, Kettering and Northampton. Traffic flows vary considerably along its length with a maximum of about 12,000 vehicles per day in South Northamptonshire, including approximately 2,500 lorries. In that part of the county, the road is a single two-lane carriageway throughout, and follows an undulating and twisting cross-country alignment.
My right hon. Friend referred with concern to accidents on the A43. I, of course, share that concern. While accidents are always to be regretted, I understand that the number on this length of road is no higher than on other comparable roads in the county. Nevertheless, accidents on that stretch of road have probably been more serious.
To improve the general road alignment as well as preparing proposals for bypasses, the Department has carried out many smaller improvements over the years and more are planned to bring the road up to a more satisfactory standard. There is no doubt that conditions leave much to be desired, not only for drivers but, as my right hon. Friend said, for those living in the towns and villages through which the traffic passes—Brackley, Towcester, Blisworth and Silverstone. It is attractive countryside and they are all pleasant places in which to live—and would be more so were it not for the heavy lorries and other traffic passing through them. There is no doubt that the quality of life for people living in these small towns and villages would be much improved if the through traffic was removed from them.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the fact that we cannot build these bypasses this year, or even next year, does not mean that we are doing nothing about them. With the exception of Silverstone, to which I shall return, there are schemes for all of them in our present programme. Brackley is in the reserve list for 1984–85 and Towcester and Blisworth for 1986 onwards.
The reserve lists were introduced in the 1980 roads White Paper. They give us a shelf of schemes which are being fully prepared and taken through all the statutory procedures laid down in the Highways Act. They will be


able to go ahead quickly if, because of delays to schemes in the main programme, there is a gap and we have resources available.
The value of the reserve list was proved last year. Because tender prices were very keen, and because one or two large schemes were held up by challenges brought by objectors in the High Court, we were able to start six out of seven schemes in the reserve list.
I have noted the points that my right hon. Friend made on behalf of the NFU with regard to compensation and acquisition.
I should explain that the public were consulted in February and March 1980 about the possible routes for a bypass for Brackley. After considering the responses—and there was a good response—a preferred route, passing to the east of the town, was announced in May 1981. Since then, the Northamptonshire county council—our agent—has continued with the preparation and detailed design of the scheme. There is still a lot of work to be done. We aim to publish draft line and side roads orders under the Highways Act in about a year's time. They will be followed by a draft compulsory purchase order.
Should there be objections to the draft orders, we shall need to consider whether a public local inquiry should be held. If one is necessary, it will probably be held in the winter of 1983–84. In that event, if the inspector reports favourably and funds are available at the time, it should be possible to start work on building the bypass in early 1985.

Mr. Prentice: Will my hon. Friend take on board the point that I made, quoting the views of the county surveyor, that if the county had a relatively larger role in this it might be possible to speed things up? I do not ask him to respond one way or the other at this moment, but will he study that and perhaps write to me later about that possibility?

Mr. Eyre: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has ministerial responsibility in that part of the Department to consider the point that he has raised.
Towcester bypass should follow about six months behind Brackley. The public were consulted about possible routes in December 1980, and the preferred route was announced in May 1981. The scheme will have to go through the same procedures as Brackley. Provided that we are able to complete these satisfactorily, we aim to start work in the latter half of 1985.
As I have already mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his White Paper, "Lorries, People and the Environment", announced that work was to be resumed on Blisworth bypass. The Northamptonshire county council—our agent—has resumed work on the

preparation of the scheme and is now nearing the end of a study of possible routes. We shall now be asking them to undertake all the remaining preparation work.
Our studies may show that there is only one route which could justify building, in which case we would hope to dispense with a time-consuming public consultation exercise. If this turns out to be the case, we would hope to announce the route in about six months' time. This would mean that it would follow about a year behind Towcester, with a possible start to the work towards the end of 1986.
The proposals for Blisworth will also take traffic away from another village, Milton Manor, as well as providing the present missing connection between the M1 and the A43.
I said that I would return to the question of Silverstone bypass. It is the one scheme for which my right hon. Friend has pressed the case on which, at present, I can offer little encouragement. It is a scheme on which work has been temporarily suspended until there is a reasonable opportunity of fitting it in, and I am sorry to say that it must remain so for the time being. Silverstone was, in fact, bypassed many years ago—about 50 years ago, to be more precise—with the result that through traffic no longer passes through the village centre. It is only fair to say, however, that some development has subsequently taken place on the side of the bypass remote from the village proper, and we accept fully the need for another bypass.
The scheme is in the programme, and we shall resume work on it as soon as there is a realistic chance of finding the money to build it. As I said earlier, we have already resumed work on some suspended schemes, and the programme is reviewed regularly. We shall pick it up as soon as we can.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the likely effects on the A43 of the proposed M40 motorway. The published proposals for that scheme include a junction with the A43 at Baynards Green. The trunk road will therefore act as a feeder route to the M40 for traffic from Brackley and surrounding areas.
Having said that, we do not expect any significant increases in traffic on these sections of the A43. Nevertheless, all the points made in this connection by my right hon. Friend will be carefully considered. I know that what I have said about the provision of these bypasses will not wholly satisfy my right hon. Friend, but I hope that I have been able to assure him and the House of the Government's determination to pursue our aim of taking heavy lorries and indeed all through traffic away from places where people live. In the case of the bypasses that we have debated today, we are pressing on with these as fast as we can.

Mr. R. M. Stevenson

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) was present when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that he would give up 15 minutes of his time so that the subject of the first debate could be considered at greater length. The hon. Gentleman will therefore not be prejudiced in any way.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not expect to take very long.
My complaint in this matter is about lack of proper, or possibly any, public accountability by British Rail in the disposal of some of its assets.
No. 24 Glasshouse Street, Nottingham, is an old property in the centre of the city, boarded up against vandals but otherwise in good repairable condition. It is adjacent to the prosperous Victoria Centre, which is the main shopping centre for Nottingham. Although Glasshouse Street is perhaps not prime property, its situation certainly makes it good secondary property, ripe for development. My constituent, Mr. R. M. Stevenson, saw this property and considered that it was indeed ripe for development.
One of the difficulties in this country, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows because he shares the same profession as I, is that one can never really tell who owns property, because there is no register of ownership for all property in this country.
My constituent went to the local council. He went to the planning department and to the rates department. He went to the electricity board. No one could tell him who owned this little property. But a chance remark on 19 March—the date is important—led him to understand that it was owned by the British Rail Property Board. On discovering this, on the following day, 20 March, he telephoned the board at Nottingham and was referred to the Birmingham office, under a Mr. Parton. Imagine his astonishment on being told that, although British Rail owned it and although there was no indication that the property had been for sale, it was being sold to someone—I know not who—for £5,000 and that contracts were out. I repeat that this was practically prime town centre property whose rental value, I am advised—I have no reason to doubt it—would, with a few alterations, have produced that figure annually on its own.
My constituent told Mr. Parton that he had been involved in property in Nottingham all his life, that this was an extremely low price and that in his view it was being given away. He advised Mr. Parton that the property next door was for sale at offers around £20,000 and that the estate agents involved were not even aware that No. 24 was for sale.
My complaint is that those who have conduct of the sale of public property in that city apparently took no steps to advertise the property and no steps to maximise the public investment in it by getting the best price either by tender or at an auction, that the price for which they sold it was so out of line with the price of property next door, and that apparently it was being sold in complete secrecy.
In drawing this case to the attention of my hon. Friend, I am asking him for an assurance that, although both of us

agree that public property which is unwanted should be sold, it should be advertised widely and sold at the best price. It should never be sold in secrecy.
The Consolidated Fund has an interest in part of the proceeds of public property, but this case has revealed that apparently there were no instructions and no checks to ensure that the State and the public—the Consolidated Fund—got the best price.
If that had been all, I would have registered a complaint with my hon. Friend and used the case as a warning for future action. But subsequent events and the conduct of one or two of the officers concerned show up in a light which causes me concern.
What happened then was that my constituent made an offer of £8,000. He made it properly and officially through his solicitors, and he sent a deposit. Then he spoke again to Mr. Parton, who confirmed quite properly that the offer had been received. Mr. Parton then advised him that there were three other interested parties, that possibly a sealed tender was the fairest way out, and that the final tender date would be, he was advised, 7 April.
This seemed entirely reasonable. At no time was my constituent told that matters had gone so far that to sell to my constituent rather than to the original purchaser, albeit for a lower price to the original purchaser, would involve gazumping. We all abhor gazumping, even when public money is involved. But that was not the case here.
On 24 March, Mr. Parton went with my constituent, Mr. Stevenson, to see the property, and my constituent took Mr. Parton back to his train. So he had been invited to inspect. Incidentally, he was given a plan of the property and he was also given the final date of 7 April by which to submit his tender. Yet, on the afternoon of 25 March, my constituent heard that £5,000 was being accepted after all.
On ringing up Mr. Parton's superior, a Mr. Butler, my constituent increased his offer to £12,000, all to no avail. He was told that, despite his offer and despite the interest of other people, contracts would be exchanged on 29 March in the sum of £5,000.
Naturally my constituent protested. He told British Rail that he would be contacting me and that no doubt I would raise the matter with the Secretary of State and Sir Peter Parker, the chairman of British Rail—all to no avail. So immune, apparently, were the officers from public accountability, even in the House, that they took no notice and, as far as I am aware, proceeded with the exchange of contracts and no doubt shortly will proceed to completion at a figure £7,000 less than my constituent was prepared to pay.
I raised the matter with Sir Peter Parker and advised him that I hoped to raise it in the House on the Adjournment.
I believe that the way that public funds have been dealt with in this case calls for an investigation. I ask why the property apparently was never advertised. Who was the purchaser—that fortunate mysterious purchaser—who got public property at a knockdown price despite offers being made of more than double that for which he was getting it? I am obliged to ask my hon. Friend to inquire what were the motives for selling to that person rather than getting the best price, and for selling in secrecy.
In a fraud case last month involving the Property Services Agency, defence counsel said in mitigation of one of the defendants that he


found himself in an environment where there was almost total lack of moral standards. Corruption was rife and not only at his level but above him.
I make it clear that I am making no allegation of corruption in this case. That was a case involving the Property Services Agency, but it was said only last month, and counsel was bold enough to say it in open court. That is why I am confident in raising this matter with my hon. Friend.
I believe that the conduct of British Rail in the way that it goes about selling public assets and the conduct and motives of the officers concerned deserve investigation. We know that it happened in the case of my constituent. A possible investigation by me and the possibility of my raising it in the House was apparently a matter of complete unconcern to those involved. I ask that we ensure that it does not happen again and that all sales of public property take place at the very least after full advertisement. Taxpayers' money is involved here and we should do no less.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport dated 30 March my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) gave notice that he had applied for an Adjournment debate on the case of his constituent Mr. R. M. Stevenson. I am grateful to him for that notice. With his letter he enclosed a copy of one that he had written on the same day to the chairman of the British Railways Board. My Department was in the process of inquiring about the facts of the case from the British Rail Property Board when notice of the Adjournment debate appeared on the Order Paper. While I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to bring his constituent's case to the attention of the House, I regret I have not yet had time fully to consider all aspects of the case and put my comments to him in the form of a written reply to his letter of 30 March.
The case as outlined by my hon. Friend today does not appear to differ in any particular from the details already set out in the enclosures to his letter of 30 March, although there is a matter of fact with regard to the advertisement of this property that I shall come to at a later stage. I believe that my hon. Friend has not been informed of certain facts.
Before I deal with the particular case, I should like to get one or two facts on record. In 1981, the British Rail Property Board sold 1,028 properties bringing in a gross revenue of £42·2 million. That is a considerable number of completed transactions.
We all know that the sale and conveyancing of property is not always a straightforward matter. The number of people interested in acquiring or leasing a property may be large or small. All inquiries involve some work. If there are two or more interested parties one or more of them is likely to be disappointed. What I must emphasise is that the responsibility for handling each of those transactions must rest clearly with the British Rail Property Board, and ultimately the British Railways Board. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is no part of my right hon. Friend's responsibility to determine how each and every employee of those bodies goes about his business or to vet, approve or disapprove of individual transactions.
I think that it might be helpful to my hon. Friend if, before dealing with the specific problem he has raised, I

also say a few words about the role of the British Rail Property Board in recent years and its new role in helping to carry forward the privatisation policy that I know my hon. Friend strongly supports.
The property board has, of course, for many years been engaged in selling property at a steady pace. Since 1979 the property board has sold property amounting in total to over £100 million. It has built up within its organisation, a great expertise in identifying suitable properties for disposal, finding buyers and negotiating sales. The figures I have just quoted demonstrate the considerable activity on the part of the property board and I think that this is not widely appreciated.
I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the board and its staff for its achievements in these years. The figures also demonstrate, I think, the very large scale of the operation on which the board has been engaged and it would be very surprising if, occasionally, transactions did not attract criticism from one party or another. I shall return to that point in a minute.
However, first let me say a word about the new role that the property board will be playing in carrying forward the policy agreed between the Government and the railways board for privatising a number of the subsidiary activities. Last year the British Railways Board established a new company, British Rail Investments Ltd., to spearhead the privatisation policy, tackling not just property but the board's shipping, hovercraft, and hotel interests
The property board's non-operational portfolio, the value of which is currently estimated at £190 million, is being transferred to British Rail Investments Ltd. together with a number of substantial operational properties no longer needed for running the railway. The task of British Rail Investments Ltd. is to ensure the optimum method of privatising that portfolio. At the moment, it is understood that BRIL will continue with and accelerate the existing disposals programme and that the British Rail Property Board will act as agents in organising the bulk of the individual sales transactions. BRIL is, of course, a relatively small organisation. It does not itself have the manpower to carry out a very large number of transactions. I must therefore stress again that the responsibility for arranging individual sales rests not with the Government but with the British Rail Property Board.
The financial responsibility for securing the best return for the public assets involved is the railways board's, not the Government's. I hope my hon. Friend will understand, therefore, that while I shall endeavour to deal with the points he has raised about the particular case, this is a commercial matter for which, ultimately, the railways board must answer. My role in this debate must necessarily be one of explaining the facts as I understand them on the basis of information that I have received from the board.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend said that this is something for which the British Railways Board must answer. Answer to whom? Is this House involved?

Mr. Eyre: The British Railways Board is ultimately accountable for its stewardship to the Government and the Government are answerable to this House. I hope that those principles will answer my hon. Friend's question.
Now I turn to the case of Mr. Stevenson. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in a matter of this kind I must rely on the facts as given to me by the British Rail Property Board. I have already acknowledged the value of the


efforts of the staff of the board, but that is not to say that errors of judgment are not made from time to time. My hon. Friend will know that mistakes can be made in any large-scale organisation. The board's general practice in regard to marketing property for disposal is dependent upon the circumstances of the individual case, its likely value and the nature of the property in terms of investment interest or of interest to potential business occupiers.
Properties of significant value are regularly well publicised in the national press and technical journals that have nation-wide circulation. However, when dealing with a small property that is likely to appeal only to local commercial demand, it would in most cases be advertised in the local papers.
The property at 24 Glasshouse Street, Nottingham, can best be discribed as an old, run-down, back-street shop which had suffered vandalism and needed a good deal of money spending on it. My hon. Friend described the property in similar terms. The valuation of the property carried out internally by the board's staff was within the range of £5,000 to £5,500.
At this point, I should emphasise that my hon. Friend was not correct when he said that the property had been disposed of secretly. The sale of 24 Glasshouse Street was advertised in the local paper, and, while several inquiries were received, only two firm offers were made, one of £2,000 and the other for £3,000 plus costs. These offers were not considered adequate, but following discussion the higher offer was increased to £5,500 plus costs, which was then accepted. Following acceptance of the offer, the prospective purchaser incurred further commitments based on the expectation that the property board would honour the agreed sale. The fact that Mr. Stevenson subsequently showed some interest in the property and indicated a willingness to offer a higher price is not disputed.
It is at this point that, on the face of it, an error of judgment was made. Mr. Stevenson was told that a purchaser had lodged a contract for £5,500 although exchange of contracts had not taken place. As I have said, this figure was reached after negotiation—based on an original offer of £3,000 plus costs, and the prospective purchaser had incurred further commitments based on the expectation that the sale would be honoured and proceed. In effect, my hon. Friend is complaining on behalf of his constituent that the property board did not, at the end of the day, go back on this agreement which it had entered into with the purchaser. An error of judgment was made, I suggest, in all the circumstances of this case, when Mr. Stevenson was given reason to believe that a sale to him was a possibility. He can, I think, quite rightly complain that in the circumstances he ought not to have been asked to view the property or be given plans and a final date of 7 April for a tender if this were to be a total waste of his time and money.
However, I think I can reasonably ask my hon. Friend what advocacy an hon. Member of this House would have presented to the House if he were here on behalf of a constituent who had been led to believe that his transaction

was going through, following substantial negotiations and the entering into of an agreement, even an informal agreement, only to be informed later by the board that the transaction was off. My understanding is that the prospective purchaser with whom a price had been negotiated was informed that there had been a higher offer. His indignation at the thought that he was about to be gazumped—I am delighted that my hon. Friend used that word—was no less than that of my hon. Friend's constituent. I submit that the property board acted honourably in retreating from its discussions with Mr. Stevenson—discussions which perhaps ought not to have been started.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the Government should give an assurance that the property board should be under some kind of obligation that at all times the best possible price should be obtained for property, however large or however small and in whatever condition, which it puts on the market. The board already accepts that its task is to manage these public assets to their best advantage. Who is to judge on a particular date in a particular place and on a particular transaction whether the price obtained is universally regarded as the best possible one? I am satisfied that the board's aim is to maximise the total revenue of its total business activities, but as anyone who has dealt with a great number of property transactions will understand, it is not possible to warrant that the highest possible price will be obtained in every single transaction.
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that the board's procedures for dealing with the disposal of its surplus assets are commercially oriented. My hon. Friend has drawn our attention to the circumstances of a particular case and has suggested that more vigorous local marketing and advertisement may have achieved an improved financial return. I am sure that the British Railways Board and the British Rail Property Board will want to take note of what has been said in the debate for, as I have tried to make clear, the responsibility for the proper management of the property is theirs. Against the background of the Government's wish that the realisation of surplus assets should be given greater priority, I believe that the property board will want to examine its procedures to ensure that where, in a particular case relating to this programme for the disposal of smaller properties—I know that my hon. Friend understands all the administrative difficulties that are involved here—there may be evidence that its initial valuation within the organisation is on the low side, an opportunity should exist for a review of the case to be undertaken at the right level within the organisation, so that a decision to proceed at a particular price is one with which the board is fully in agreement.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that he is not alleging corruption in this case, as I know he will accept that there is no evidence of such unacceptable conduct. However, I have tried to describe fairly the way in which the transaction proceeded. I hope that my hon. Friend will find what I have said to be reasonably reassuring.

Mr. Andrew Bennett

Mr. Frank Hooley: My constituent John Andrew Bennett was extremely keen to join the Army and especially wished to serve in one of the Guards regiments. So he went along to the local Army careers information office to inquire about it. Unfortunately, he has a medical history of epilepsy, but he declared that frankly at the outset to the careers information officers.
He was referred for a medical examination to a civilian doctor, Dr. Flint in Sheffield, who apparently carries out preliminary medical examinations on behalf of the Armed Forces. He was duly examined on 9 October 1980 and declared by Dr. Flint to be fit for enlistment. Naturally, he was delighted about that as it opened the way to his desired career. After some time, no doubt taken up with the usual documentation, he gave up his civilian job on 9 February and reported to join the Coldstream Guards on 16 February at their depot at Pirbright in Surrey.
What happened next is unclear to me. It was decided at the depot that a further medical examination was required and he was referred to a consultant neurologist at the Cambridge military hospital in Aldershot, where he was declared unfit for military service. He was discharged from the Army on 27 March with an effective service of one month and 25 days. I have the discharge certificate, which states:
Not finally approved for Army service—Queen's Regulations 1975, para. 9.380".
The discharge certificate shows his conduct as exemplary, so clearly there can be no other reason for his discharge than medical.
Naturally, Andrew Bennett was bitterly disappointed by that decision. It put an end to the career on which he had set his heart. He gave up civilian employment to go into the Army, which is no light decision in these days with 3 million unemployed, and he found himself worse than back at square one.
His father was also outraged by the events, with his son at first declared fit for enlistment and subsequently turned down on medical grounds. He approached me about the matter and I wrote to the Ministry of Defence. The Minister's reply was that a claim for compensation could be submitted to a body known as the Ministry of Defence Claims Commission. Such a claim was duly submitted by Mr. Bennett's solicitors on behalf of his son on 8 July 1981.
That body appears to be somewhat dilatory and halfhearted in its dealings and had to be reminded on many occasions that it was still dithering about the claim. After a delay of six months, which I regard as inordinate and as evidence of some incompetence or an uncaring attitude, the claim was firmly turned down in a letter dated 27 January 1982. To be more accurate, it was turned down in two letters. One letter was dated 27 January 1982 and one was dated 25 January 1982. Both were signed by different people, but the texts are identical. The defence claims commission is so dithering and incompetent that it has to write twice in exactly the same terms on exactly the same claim. No doubt somebody can look into that.
After joining up to serve in Her Majesty's Forces in September or October 1980, by January 1982—14 months later—Mr. Bennett found that his preferred career was not

feasible. The matter appeared to have been mishandled, either by the medical authorities or otherwise, and his claim for compensation had been flatly turned down after considerable delay.
A number of important questions arise on this case and on the general process of enlistment. There is the question of the medical history of epilepsy. In a letter to the father, Mr. D. Bennett, a Major Bethell of the Caterham Company, Guards depot, wrote:
Army Medical Regulations specifically state that any history of epilepsy automatically prevents any enlistment. The civilian physician who saw your son prior to his arrival here should have been aware of this.
That letter was dated 24 March 1981 and I have it in my possession.
On that basis there was clearly some incompetence or negligence on the part of the doctor who originally examined Andrew Bennett in Sheffield. He should have known that any history of epilepsy ruled out Andrew from an Army career. He should have told him so right from the word go.
However, the letter that was ultimately received from the Ministry of Defence Claims Commission, which I have in my possession, states:
Army Medical Regulations do not specifically state that any history of epilepsy automatically prevents enlistment and therefore the orginal decision to accept your client for enlistment was a valid medical opinion based on the Consultant's knowledge of your client's medical history which he fully considered. In the event, your client's discharge was the result of a legitimate difference of medical opinion within the parameters of normal medical/clinical judgment.
Those two statements cannot both be true. Somebody is not telling the truth. I am inclined to think that Major Bethell, as a serving officer, probably knows the Army medical regulations. I have a strong suspicion that somewhere along the line the legal advisers of the Ministry of Defence Claims Commission are wriggling and twisting to get out of meeting a reasonable claim for compensation. Whoever is at fault, they cannot both be right.
On the one hand, a formal letter to Mr. Bennett—not a telephone conversation or something like that—presumably from the commanding officer of the company, said quite categorically that any history of epilepsy rules out a man from joining the forces. I have no medical qualifications to judge whether that is sensible or not, but that is what is said. The Ministry of Defence Claims Commission categorically says the opposite; that that is not true. In that case, prima facie, there is some grievous error in the handling of the enlistment process on one side or the other.
This matter has had a highly unfortunate and damaging effect on a young man's career. Had he been told at the outset that he was not acceptable, he would have stayed in his civilian job. He would, no doubt sorrowfully., have abandoned any prospect of going into the Guards and oriented himself differently. However, on receipt of the original clearance by the doctor in Sheffield, naturally he thought that he could go ahead and do what he wanted. The subsequent disappointment was all the more bitter and grievous a blow.
Presumably some documents in relation to Mr. Bennett's enlistment were sent to Pirbright, or possibly Ito the Ministry of Defence in London, in advance of Mr. Bennett's turning up at Pirbright. Presumably they must have contained some reference to his medical history. In that case, why was he not advised to hold his hand, to stay


in his job and not to turn up at Pirbright until there had been a closer investigation into his medical condition? That point should be cleared up.
When Mr. Bennett arrived at the Guards depot, why was there a gap of 4½ weeks before the next medical examination—the fateful one that ruled him out—took place? If there was any uncertainty about his medical condition, surely the matter should have been settled before he got there. However, once he had got there, any uncertainty about his fitness could surely have been dealt with within two or three days. I do not understand why he was kept there for 4½ weeks before being sent to the military hospital at Aldershot for a final decision.
I turn to the more general questions raised by the case. In his letter to Mr. Bennett's father, Major Bethell wrote:
I am sure you will appreciate that physical fitness and the ability to complete basic training are of prime importance not only to the Army but to the potential recruit and to this end extremely high medical standards are insisted upon.
I have no quarrel with that. That is a sensible, straightforward and honest statement. Anyone serving in a modern army—or in any army—must be physically fit. A professional soldier must measure up to a high standard of physical fitness and Majoy Bethell's comments are absolutely right.
However, surely it is incumbent on the Army recruitment authorities to ensure that all medical formalities are completed before enlistment and before a potential recruit gives up his job and commits himself to the Army. Surely we should not have a system under which a man or woman can be admitted to the forces in all good faith, on the assumption that his or her career is definite, and find after four or five weeks later—or perhaps even longer—that another medical test is required which could disqualify him or her.
I cannot understand why it is beyond the wit of the administrative authorities of Her Majesty's forces to settle such matters, particularly when there is some previous, openly declared medical condition that could put in doubt the person's fitness for service. I do not understand why someone should be required to give up his job, leave home and to cut off all his ordinary family contacts to enlist and should then be told "I am sorry, but we bungled or cannot agree on the medical examination and you're out. That's it." By then, it is probably too late for the individual to take up his previous job and to renew his connections.
What general advice and instruction is given to civilian doctors who carry out medical examinations on behalf of the Armed Forces about the medical conditions that automatically disqualify someone from entry into the forces? There is a flat contradiction about epilepsy in two official documents. One comes from a serving officer and the other comes from the claims commission. Other medical conditions may automatically disqualify someone from joining the Army. That is fair enough. For example, a heart condition, short-sightedness or deafness could automatically rule out entry into the forces. No one would quarrel with that, because physical fitness is important.
However, are clear and definite instructions given to those who carry out the preliminary medical examination so that they can say at the outset that they are sorry that, although the person involved is keen to join the forces, his condition rules him out? That is fair because everyone will know where he is. A person who in good faith says that

he would like to join the Army but unfortunately has a physical disability or a minor difficulty is entitled to be told whether that rules him out. The doctors should be given clear and explicit instructions of the requirements so that they cannot be accused of incompetence or negligence.
The case is unfortunate. The boy was keen to go into the Army. He thought that he had been accepted, but within a few weeks he was summarily rejected. The least that should happen is for the Ministry to offer an ex gratia payment in recognition of the boy's disappointment and the mishandling of his case. A penetrating examination is needed of the medical requirements and the instructions given to doctors. I want a categoric answer to why the two letters are flatly contradictory because someone is telling lies.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Gerry Wiggin): It is customary on such occasions to congratulate the hon. Member who has raised the subject. I freely and gladly do that. I handle a large number of individual cases relating to all three Services and to different categories. My door is always opon to hon. Members. Sometimes it is easier to discuss personal or medical matters in private, not only to save embarrassment to the individual but because it gives me greater freedom than I am given when making a speech from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) will agree that the fitness of members of the Armed Forces is of the highest importance. The events of the past few days have shown how important it is that all who serve in Her Majesty's Forces are ready and able to go wherever required as a result of having the highest possible mental and physical standards.
I shall explain the process of entering the Army and how the medical requirements are processed. On application at a recruiting office a man is given a number of forms to complete, one of which is a medical form. He has to take that to a local doctor nominated by the Army who will, on the Army's behalf, make an initial examination and provide an assessment of his general health based on a system known as Pulheems. The individual, or the parent in the case of a junior, has to complete a questionnaire declaring any past complaints or special medical consultations.
Assuming that the information obtained from the initial application forms gives grounds for proceeding further, after further tests at a recruit selection centre the man is offered a job vacancy and, all being well, he is enlisted into the Army.
I turn to the specific case of Andrew Bennett. I have every sympathy with Andrew in his disappointment at being found unfit to serve in the Army. I assure him that the last thing that the Army wants is to turn away suitable recruits. Even at a time of good recruiting levels we are always short of people of the right calibre. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked carefully into this case.
When Andrew applied to join the Army, he and his father were open about his epilepsy, which started at the age of 11 and continued for some time. However, it had given him no trouble for some years. At that stage he was seen by both the local doctor and by a civilian physician


on the question of his epilepsy. Both felt that there was no medical reason why he should not be allowed to proceed with his entry to the Army.
Andrew attested on 2 February 1981. He joined the Pirbright depot on 16 February. On seeing him on 17 February, the Pirbright medical officer immediately expressed concern about Andrew's history of epilepsy. He felt that a further investigation was justified.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about delay. Andrew was seen immediately he arrived by the unit MO. He was referred to a consultant. In the circumstances, the fact that that took a month is regrettable. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there are much longer waiting periods for seeing consultants in other areas. Naturally, the MO wished Andrew to see an expert.
I emphasise that the overriding concern throughout the case has been Andrew's interests as well as the needs of the Service. It was on those grounds that the MO felt that it was necessary to have a further opinion from a consultant neurologist to the Army medical authorities. In the event, Andrew was seen by a civilian consultant neurologist at the Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot, on 20 March 1981. His opinion was clear—that Andrew should not be accepted for military service.
What has happened in this case amounts to a matter of medical judgment. The first doctors to see Andrew considered that he was fit—he may be, in the normal sense of the word. The doctors in the Army medical service, however, who are aware of the environment to which young Servicemen are exposed, judged that he was unfit for military service. Andrew has had epilepsy in the recent past and there is no guarantee that the condition will not recur, especially under conditions of extreme duress. I am extremely sorry that that has to be the outcome, but I feel sure that it is the right one.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the handling of the case and compensation. There is no intention of implying that the civilian doctors who examined Andrew, particularly the consultant who first examined him on the question of his history of epilepsy, failed to discharge their responsibilities properly.
I am sorry that the impression was given by an officer who wrote to Mr. Bennett senior last March that there were regulations that any history of epilepsy automatically prevented any enlistment and that the civilian physician should have been aware of that. There are regulations on the subject. Doctors who examine recruits for the Army have copies of those regulations and should be familiar with them. In this case one would have expected the doctor to look up those regulations. I shall read the relevant sentence under the general heading of
Nervous System a. Epilepsy:
It states:
Proven epilepsy, with a few exceptions, is to be assessed P8. It is unwise, however, to base the diagnosis on the history of one fit.
There are a few exceptions. Unfortunately, this is where Major Bethell was wrong. An ordinary layman such as the hon. Gentleman or I would agree that, knowing that P8 means virtual exclusion, the same interpretation as that of Major Bethell could be read into the sentence. That is the precise wording of the regulations. I am sure that they must remain so, but the wording led to that minor misunderstanding and the difference between the two documents that Mr. Bennett senior was sent.
The decision must rest with the Army in the final instance. The Army's neurologist's opinion was that Andrew was not fit for military service. Even the existence of a normal encephalograph reading would not eliminate the possibility of latent epilepsy, which could recur.
A claim for compensation was made by solicitors on Andrew's behalf. My Department has taken advice from the Treasury Solicitor on the legal merits of the claim. The position is that as this is a matter of legitimate difference of medical opinion no negligence occurred on which a legal claim for compensation can be based. Mr. Bennett's solicitors were advised, and Mr. Bennett wrote a further letter to my Department in February complaining of the outcome. Following that letter, I had expected, as had my officials, further communications from Mr. Bennett or from the hon. Gentleman. The letter was not replied to as it did not appear to call for a reply.
I am sorry that the claims commission duplicated a letter—clearly there was clerical inefficiency which will no doubt be looked into—and that there was delay in handling this claim.

Mr. Hooley: If there is a medical history of, say, epilepsy, and bearing in mind the rather clever phraseology of the regulation, is there no possibility of a second opinion being obtained before the man enlists?

Mr. Wiggin: In this case, a second opinion was obtained.

Mr. Hooley: Before enlistment?

Mr. Wiggin: The original GP who examined the young man said that in his view there was no problem. The young man then went to a consultant—before joining the Army—who also said that there was no problem. He then joined the Army. The unit MO questioned the previous decisions and the consultant neurologist agreed with him. We are faced with total disagreement between the two GPs and between the two consultants.
It is unfortunate that the young man's ambitions have been fractured by that difference of opinion. We must take the consultant neurologist's view. This is not an area where we can afford to take the slightest risk.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should reconsider the procedures. I am sure his remarks will he noted. I, too, am concerned that people should not give up their jobs to join the Services only to find, for an unexpected reason, that they are medically excluded from making the Services their career. It is destressing to deal with such cases, and I am sorry that on this occasion the Bennetts should be so upset.
It would be presumptuous of me to advise Andrew to put this matter behind him and to concentrate on his future career, but I hope that the hon. Member for Heeley will feel that his constituent's rights and concerns have been given a great deal of attention and that the outcome is the right one.
Nothing that I or the Department have said precludes Andrew Bennett from taking legal advice on the possibility of instituting proceedings against the Department. He is entitled to do that, although clearly that legal advice must come from his own advisers and not from me.

Sitting suspended.

Stone-Platt Industries

On resuming—

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for giving me time from his debate to press on the Government the problems in my constituency resulting from the collapse of the Platt Saco Lowell group. The hon. Gentleman's gesture is in the best inter-party traditions. My constituents, too, will be grateful to him.
The Minister is well aware of the background to the collapse of the group. I am grateful to the Minister of State for seeing me. I pressed on him the need for urgent Government action to help Accrington. Yesterday 900 jobs were lost in an area where unemployment stands at 14 per cent. I shudder to think what the rate will be when those job losses are added on.
Under one name or another the company has existed in Accrington for about 100 years. The Government should be proud of it. It has excellent labour relations. I cannot sufficiently praise the works convener, Peter McCloughlin, and the works committee for the way in which they have co-operated with the management to try to make the company viable and successful.
Unfortunately, the company went into receivership. The receiver has done everything that he can to make sure that the sale to the only bidder, the United States Hollingsworth company, goes through. I am happy to say that on 19 April Hollingsworth will engage further workers. I hope that the number will be more than the 400 engaged originally, but there are rumours that it could be less.
There is an overwhelming need now for development area status for north-east Lancashire. Although I do not expect a definite answer, I hope that the Minister will give me encouragement. Loyal, decent and hard-working people are talking seriously about Accrington being a ghost town. There are rumours that two of the few remaining engineering companies are about to lay off workers, which would make unemployment horrific.
I am grateful to the Minister for helping the Hollingsworth deal. There were complications with American anti-trust laws. The hon. Gentleman kept his word to ease the way. I now ask for a commitment that he will do all that he can to encourage jobs to come to Accrington.
The human problems resulting from such collapses are immense. Workers who agreed to voluntary redundancy now have cheques bouncing as a result of the firm going into receivership. Their payments are in jeopardy. The sums may amount to thousands of pounds. I hope that the Minister can ensure that workers who may have kept their cheques for a couple of days longer than they should have done are not put in jeopardy.
I hope that in this short time I have covered the main points. Development area status is urgently needed for Accrington and north-east Lancashire. If development area status is not granted shortly, a sense of despair, defeat and despondency will become a reality in a proud area. I am grateful to the Minister for being here. I hope that there will be a glimmer of good news in what he says.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): As the hon. and learned Member for

Accrington (Mr. Davidson) will know, had there been a full debate I should have gone into the background in some detail and made many more points than I am able to do in this shortened debate. He will know the background.
I share the hon. and learned Member's concern at the receivership of Stone-Platt Industries, and am fully aware of the distressing implications this has for those closely involved in the activities of the group and its subsidiaries. I must emphasise, however, that the decision of 18 March to call in the receiver was most definitely a matter for the financial organisations concerned. It represented their commercial judgment and was not one in which the Government felt able to intervene directly.
When Stone-Platt's banks rejected the programme of disposals proposed by the board, aimed at reducing borrowing facilities and eliminating the principal causes of the group's losses in recent years, the board requested Midland Bank, as lead bank, to appoint a receiver and manager under the terms of the bank's security.
Before its receivership, Stone-Platt had, during the past year, been through a period of contraction and rationalisation. Generally, its operations had been brought on to an even keel, with the exception of its textile machinery interests. The then chairman said in the press announcement immediately the receivership decision was announced that the board's decisions would have eliminated the principal cause of the group's losses in recent years—the Platt Saco Lowell division to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. As he will know, the declining performance of that and other United Kingdom companies in the textile machinery sector is attributable to several factors. I shall single out just two.
First, there has been a decline over a number of years—not just the last two—in the United Kingdom share of the world textile machinery market. Platt Saco Lowell has participated in that decline. The trend has been wrong for some time. Secondly, there has been the impact of the worldwide recession on the textile machinery market overseas as well as at home. It is perhaps significant that in 1980 Platt Saco Lowell had total sales of £60 million—down on the previous year—almost 100 per cent. of which was in exports. The world market, therefore, is extremely important. That is the background.
The United Kingdom textile machinery industry has declined markedly for the past decade. I give those details only to emphasise that the difficulties experienced by the industry have not suddenly materialised during the past two or three years. They will face potential purchasers of the textile machinery division of Stone-Platt either in part or in whole.
In this climate, Platt Saco Lowell's problems have grown, despite its having received considerable sums of public money, under various schemes of Government assistence, for both capital investment and product development. The decision by the receiver to announce last week and yesterday redundancies affecting the Accrington work force was sad—all the more so given the company's long and honourable record as one of Accrington's biggest employers. I fully appreciate the distressing circumstances, which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, for all those concerned. I extend my sympathy to them.
The hon. and learned Member for Accrington's concern was evident when he called upon my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry and Information Technology on 29 March to discuss the implications for Platt Saco


Lowell of the Stone-Platt receivership. At that meeting my hon. Friend gave an assurance that the Department of Industry would co-operate with the joint receivers and would consider as speedily as possible any proposals for financial support, under the standard criteria of the various schemes of assistance, for industrial projects including those involving parts of the Stone-Platt business. That pledge remains.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the sale of some parts of Platt Saco Lowell, including the Accrington and Helmshore works, was announced yesterday by the joint receivers. The assets form the basis of a new company, PSL(UK) Ltd, which will open for business on 19 April. It is a subsidiary of Hollingsworth and will actively consider what staffing levels will be required. Employment will be offered to selected former employees next week.
I understand that Mr. Smalley, a director, has been meeting shop stewards at Accrington this morning. I am advised that that was the only deal open to the receivers that offered the prospect of continued production and employment at Accrington.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I accept that.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred briefly to the action that the Government have taken. The sale was subject to clearance in the United States on the anti-trust aspects and we have been acting through our embassy in Washington to achieve prompt clearance. I can also give him an assurance that if any proposals are put to us for the kind of financial assistance under the existing schemes to which my hon. Friend referred we shall look at them speedily. Indeed, we reminded the company of that situation only last night.
Finally, I shall deal with the question of Accrington's assisted area status. On 18 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met a deputation from the North-East Lancashire Development Association to discuss the association's case for development area status throughout North-East Lancashire. There was a useful exchange of views at that meeting, and my right hon. Friend will be writing to the chairman of the association when he has had time to give careful consideration to the association's case. In doing so he will of course take full account of the situation in the individual travel-to-work areas within the association's area, including Accrington.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that as of last month the unemployment level in Accrington was 13·9 per cent., with an intermediate area of average of 15 per cent. I cannot predict at this moment what levels of unemployment will be reached as a result of yesterday's announcement because we do not know how many jobs will be created by the new company. Equally, we do not know how many of those made redundant will register—it is always less than the full force. Nevertheless, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said today about the position and I shall keep a watchful eye on it.
I hope that I have been able to indicate the Government's position, and our concern and willingness to look at the various points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.

Religious Education

Mr. Harry Greenway: No two Members of the House apart from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself have longer and deeper experience of secondary schools in this country, particularly in relation to religious education in schools. I think that between us we have some 50 years' experience of schools in deprived and depressed areas, including schools of 2,000-plus pupils, and mixed at that. I therefore believe that we can make a unique contribution to this very important area.
I refer particularly to the second report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, Session 1981–82 on "The Secondary School Curriculum and Examinations: with special reference to the 14 to 16 year old age group". That report looked carefully, thoughtfully and deeply into the subject of religious education.
Sadly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is unable to be here, as are others of my hon. Friends and Labour Members who nevertheless expressed the wish to be associated with my remarks. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) are present. They have always taken a special interest in this subject, which is of central importance to all of us.
Recommendation 17 of the Select Committee states:
More properly qualified Religious Education teachers and inspectors should be appointed.
In my view, the appointment of properly qualified RE specialists depends upon five interrelated key factors. I wish at this point to lay down the bare bones of my argument and to build upon them as I continue. I shall begin by being somewhat statistical, and I hope that this will be understood.
First, the recruitment demand of schools to staff RE departments adequately with specialist advisers is also covered by the Select Committee report. Paragraph 5·28 states:
Religious education and English are the two most notable instances in the secondary curriculum of what the DES refers to as 'hidden shortages"—
staff shortages—
or curriculum provision being maintained by 'teachers…who by some criteria are insufficiently qualified'.
In my view, religious education must be recognised as a distinctive curriculum element.
Secondly, the adequate teaching of religious education as a distinctive element having parity status with other academic subjects needs from now on to be recognised in both financial and curriculum terms in a way in which it has not been recognised hitherto. The 1979 HMI report on aspects of secondary education states, first, that only 58 per cent. of schools and 50 per cent. of comprehensives offered RE to all pupils. Secondly, 18 per cent. overall and 22 per cent. of comprehensives offered no religious education at all beyond the third year of children's education. To that should be added moral education, and what a situation that is!
Thirdly, after the fifth year provision, post-fifth year provision is significantly low, because RE is being buried increasingly within the humanities area of the school curriculum.
DES bulletin 6/80 said that the average percentage of pupil periods of study for RE was as follows: in the first


to third years of secondary education it represented 4·1 per cent. of curriculum time; in the fourth and fifth years that was down to 2·6 per cent. of curriculum time; and in the sixth year it was down to 1·9 per cent. of curriculum time.
I have vividly in my mind a visit that I made only last week to St. Saviour's, Toxteth. I recall all that happened there only a few weeks ago, the essential need for that school and others to be grounded properly upon the proper teaching of religious and moral values, and the fact that such teaching had become secondary at St. Saviour's, Toxteth, in my view was part of the reason for the way that that school fell to pieces during those awful few days.
Other humanities than religious education receive no less than 30 per cent. of curriculum time. There is also a resultant low capitation provision. Not much money is spent on religious education, the provision of books and the rest of it. It follows that there is insufficient teacher-pupil contact to provide the essential background and stimulus that are needed if examination option work is to be undertaken by the children.
The third factor is the existing supply of properly trained teachers of religious education. DES paper No. 2 says that there were 12,800 teachers without formal RE qualifications. Put another way, it means that 50 per cent. of those teaching RE have no formal qualifications to teach the subject.
The HMI report "The Aspect of Secondary Education 1979" says that 43 per cent. of secondary RE teachers have five years' or less experience, 17 per cent. are probationers, and 20 per cent. of those teaching religious education as their first subject have no qualification in it at all. RE teachers are forced away from RE teaching to improve their career status in senior teaching positions due to the low status scale provision of most heads of RE.
In my long experience of schools, I have always felt that the head of RE in a school should have parity with the heads of science, maths, English and every other major discipline in the school and that his scale post should be rated accordingly. The soul of man is more important than the body. The subject that gives him his sense of values and his self-understanding of his relationship with his maker seems to me to be of greater importance than anything else. But no one would think that from the way that the subject is handled.
The fourth factor to which I refer is the training of properly qualified religious education specialists. Government policy has seen the mass closure of colleges of education, not just under this Government. In fact, the criticism applies less to the present Administration than to former Governments. Most of the colleges had RE departments. The colleges have been absorbed in the polytechnics, which do not have RE departments.
Christians wishing to train for religious education teaching are put off by two key factors. The first is the liberal theology of most university or training college courses. I think that the Minister and society at large will understand what I mean by that. The second aspect is the failure to receive mandatory grants for CNAA validated theology degree courses in advance of teacher training at non-maintained theological colleges, for example—and one must mention them—the London Bible college and Oakfield theological college.
The fifth factor to which I refer is the fact that in recent years religious education has lacked a specific national

syllabus that coincides with what I would call educational necessity and teacher certainty. It is a question for the individual, to some extent. I would content myself with saying that curricula in religious education need to be kept abreast of the way that society and theological thought move at the same time as preserving the fundamental and unchanging values that Christ, at the centre of Christianity, came to present. From these, any pupil following such curriculum can get that deep sense of what is right and wrong, how to conduct himself both in family and social terms, and that philosophical, moral, and religious faith from which to live his life in a contented and full way.
I remind the House that the most recently published report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee contained the recommendation that
more properly qualified religious education teachers and inspectors should be appointed".
Since that recommendation was made fresh evidence has been published that shows even more clearly how great is the need for more RE teachers. Part of the evidence comes in a document published only last week by the Religious Education Council, and the rest comes in DES statistical bulletin published earlier in March giving the Government's figures. The Religious Education Council document is described as an RE directory and it gives an account of the sort of provision currently to be found across the country both in terms of resources for the subject available in the schools and in terms of support available to the teachers of the subject. This is very important, as my hon. Friend knows. It gives a picture of lively activity, ingenious initiatives and considerable mutual support of a practical nature. The appearance of the directory is a significant example of this.
The directory also reveals a picture of inadequate support from both local and central Government to religious education in schools. I shall give some details of this. As we all know, local education authorities have the responsibility for ensuring that the educational needs of their area are met. To help them carry out that duty they appoint advisers or inspectors, the labels being interchangeable. Many of these inspectors have specific responsibility for a subject or group of subjects.
The new directory reveals that, although most of the LEAs have such a post relating to religious education, the proportion of time that the relevant inspectors can spend on the subject is, in most cases, very small. Only 46 per cent. of the local education authorities have an inspector able to give more than one-tenth of his time to religious education. How can a subject be given adequate support from this sort of provision?
The Select Committee's recommendations for further appointments in this subject needs to be pressed home hard on the local authorities as a priority commitment, even in this time of financial constraint. It seems to me that the fundamental cause of the difficulties that we have in society, such as violence and riots, is a complete lack of values on the part of those who riot and cause social distress to their neighbours. It shows a complete failure to understand what the brotherhood of man and its responsibility means between one citizen and another. That must come as the result of the failure of religious education in schools and we must put that right so that we get things right at the grass roots, from which society can grow once more to that true sense of responsibility from which alone people will behave fairly and reasonably


towards one another. It cannot be done by force, and religious education has always been the basis of this cohesion in our society.
The Select Committee also called for the appointment of more properly qualified religious education teachers in our schools. I have already given the statistics to show the current position. The new evidence adds considerable weight to the urgency of that call. I recognise that statistics about shortage subjects have in the past been open to a certain amount of argument, but these newly revealed facts seem to be incontrovertible in their implication.
Among the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the President of the Methodist Conference and the Moderator of the Free Churches. The evidence could not have been more high-powered. In its evidence, the DES distinguished between three kinds of teacher shortage—overt shortages, hidden shortages and suppressed shortages. The first was calculated on the simple evidence from school vacancy lists; the second was indicated by the presence in the classroom of people teaching a subject that they were not adequately qualified to teach; and the third was revealed by inadequate timetable provision of a subject because teachers were not forthcoming in sufficient numbers to teach it properly.
Despite this subtle and important analysis, however, the only figures made available to the Committee related to the first of those categories—the simple evidence from vacancy lists. On the basis of those lists, religious education was categorised as not being a shortage subject. However, as everyone admits, that evidence ignores completely the other two kinds of shortage, quite apart from a fourth kind, which I would call a planning shortage, identified by the Committee, and which has its own importance when one is thinking of the future and not merely seeking to remedy the deficiencies of the past.
There are fewer vacancies in religious education than, say, chemistry because schools are beginning to despair of recruiting specialists in religious education, and, especially at a time of falling rolls, are understandably unwilling to keep open a vacancy month after month when they could fill the vacant position with, say, a good geographer or historian. Even the teaching of religious education must be cut back in that sort of school as a result.
In the Department's own terms, the absence of evidence for overt shortage can often be explained by the presence of suppressed shortage. A more reliable measure of shortage is clearly the DES's second category of hidden shortage. To calculate that, one looks at the number of people teaching a subject who are not adequately qualified to teach it. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree, there is no more difficult subject to teach.
This was the technique used by the Cockcroft committee when calculating the present shortage of mathematics teachers. Now that we have DES statistical bulletin 5/82 in front of us, we can see the position of religious education in this respect, and the evidence is striking and disturbing. Table 16 of that bulletin reveals that well over half—no less than 59 per cent.—of people teaching RE have no recorded qualification in the subject whatever. That is by far the worst position of any subject on the curriculum. It is far worse than science and twice as bad as maths and technology.
Of course, many of those non-specialists teach only one or two periods of religious education each week at the most. Therefore, a more accurate picture of the extent of unqualified teaching will be drawn from an examination of the percentage of time taught by non-specialists in the various subjects. Here again, I am sorry to say that religious education is clearly shown as being in the worst position—29 per cent., or almost one-third of all periods taught, is taught by non-specialists. For maths and technology, the comparable figure is only 15 per cent. That is bad enough. Even for physics, way out at the top of the vacancies table, the figure is only 22 per cent. I shall say no more about similar percentages, but the House can take it from me that the situation is very serious.
What can be done? The least that can be done is for the DES to acknowledge the facts and take steps to safeguard existing provision in the subject. The Department should not let the situation get any worse. It can be done in two ways, neither of which will require any additional financial resources. First, the Department can use the network of Her Majesty's inspectorate to work with LEA inspectors to discover the full extent of suppressed shortage in religious education, and, secondly, it can safeguard the training routes for RE specialists, at both in-service and initial training levels.
The very existence of Church schools—denominational schools—which were the basis on which education first came to this country for the masses, is threatened by the Labour Party, led by the Socialist Education Association. There are similar insidious and hidden attacks on religious education in the school curricula of non-denominational schools. Neglect is as bad an enemy as attack, and we must tackle that problem. We should remind ourselves that the very basis of our civilisation has always been a Christian one. In my view, religious education should have that at its centre, at the same time as taking account of the fact that our society now contains many ethnic groups, which should be included in the curriculum in terms of their own background and religions. What we cannot do is to let the situation stay as it is. Otherwise our society will fall apart, and that would be disastrous for our nation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We all owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for raising this important subject. I particularly noted his suggestions about the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science in carrying out improvements. I am glad to see with us my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), who are all concerned about the problems of religious education in schools. I am glad also to see the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. BrocklebankFowler). We often have Adjournment debates when there is no one on the Opposition Benches.
It is highly appropriate that my hon. Friend raises this subject today, Maundy Thursday, the day when we recall the Last Supper and the events which began that evening, leading to the Passion and Crucifixion of our Lord, and leading again to the most important feast within the Christian calendar, that of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. Of course, as Christ was celebrating the Feast of the Passover at that Last Supper, today is also an important day for our Jewish friends, as it is the Passover.
Religious education is the only subject in the school curriculum which is compulsory by law. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is in total agreement with that statement. Of course, many other subjects are vital, starting with literacy and numeracy, without which a child is most surely deprived. But those who framed the Education Act 1944—it is within that framework that my hon. Friend spoke today—while assuming that all the basic subjects would be taught in school, thought it right to spell out clearly that all children of compulsory school age should receive religious education.
It is as well to reiterate here exactly what the law says. Section 25 of the Education Act 1944 has not been amended. It is still there, as passed by this House nearly 40 years ago. It reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school, and the arrangements made therefor shall provide for a single act of worship attended by all such pupils unless, in the opinion of the local education authority, or, in the case of a voluntary school, of the managers or governors thereof, the school premises are such as to make it impracticable to assemble them for that purpose.
Subject to the provisions of this section, religious instruction shall be given in every county school and in every voluntary school.
There is no harm in reminding ourselves about what was put in the 1944 Act intentionally and with all-party agreement.
The section goes on to give the rights of parents to withdraw their children from such religious instruction and worship, but also spells out clearly how arrangements should be made within schools, if possible, otherwise outside, for those of minority faiths to receive instruction in their own faiths. We have many minority groups in our community now. I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is the law on religious education and the school assembly, and that we have no intention of changing the law, but every intention of seeing that it is upheld. It is relevant today as it was all those years ago, and of course, even before the 1944 Act, religious education was to be found in practically all schools. The daily act of worship was found in most schools well before 1944.

Mr. Tom Normanton: May I endorse strongly the line that my hon. Friend is taking on the whole question of religious education. I am convinced that it has widespread support in the House and, certainly in my constituency, widespread support among the parents and those children who have experienced religious education. However, it is not sufficient to make it compulsory that a formal day's curriculum should start with a religious tract. It is also important that we maintain and encourage the continued existence of schools that have a religious basis. I have in my constituency such a school which is on the verge of demise. Its future lies entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State and I would be grateful to hear about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), just as I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wish to put some matters on the record.

I was talking to my hon. Friend yesterday evening and what I said must have impressed him because he has stayed behind today to talk about it. I shall draw his remarks to the Secretary of State's attention.
I have said that literacy and numeracy are essential, and without them a child is deprived, in the true meaning of that word. The old-fashioned term for literacy and numeracy, but still a very good one, is the three Rs. Religious education is the fourth R, and the child is equally deprived if we neglect that fourth R. Furthermore, we are talking about religious education throughout the school, and that is much more than just Bible stories for the toddlers. It means religious education at least up to the age of 16, and I deplore the custom that has crept into some schools, and which I believe is against the law, to exempt the older children from morning assembly and to drop religious education from the curriculum altogether in the fourth and fifth years. Religious education should be compulsory up to school-leaving age.
Religious education—especially in the Judea-Christian tradition—is basic to an understanding of our society, culture and learning. The famous Durham report put it this way:
Religious education is essential because we in England are heirs to the cultural tradition of the west: the Christian faith is so interwoven with our history, art, music and literature, that it would not be possible to teach these subjects in schools without some teaching about Christian religion.
Of course, in today's society, there are more non-Christians than there were in 1944. We have welcomed into our midst many good people who are just as firm in their faith as the best of the Christians. I have in my constituency, as do you in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possibly as great a diversity as any and certainly some of the largest groups of non-Christian minorities. Apart from the Christians, who themselves are diverse, I have many practising Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Those children have a right to be taught the faith of their fathers, just as Christian children should grow up knowing what their faith is, with roots that will carry them through the problems of adolescence and through their lives. They should not be taught a mish-mash of everyone else's religion and there should not be a Cook's tour of the world's religions. They should have clear religious education which, for the majority in Britain, is Christianity. The Archbishop of Canterbury referred to that in a speech only a few weeks ago. For others it may mean the Jewish faith and for others again the faith of their fathers. I am not asking for evangelism. I ask not for indoctrination, but for induction. When the child grows up, of course, it will make its own choice; it will decide, but decide on what? On a mushy, do-good sociology? If we give our children that, no wonder they reject it when they are older, for that is no faith.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education, made a shrewd observation which is as true today as it was when she said it. She said that in too many schools children were being taught doubt before belief. I remember a debate on a Friday morning in 1976 which was inaugurated by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who has joined us today with his usual zeal.
We want fifth formers to have a critical analysis of their faith and of that of others, and for them to debate about God, religion and worship. But, for Heaven's sake—


literally "for Heaven's sake"—let the young children know what their faith is. We can then discuss it. The first thing, as in any other subject, is the structure of the subject.
Let the young child from a Christian family learn the Christian faith, the life of Christ, the meaning of the life of Christ, and learn, for example, the tremendous significance that Christians place on the events that we commemorate this week, about which I reminded the House a moment ago.
The young adult cannot accept or reject his Christian faith if he does not even know what it is; similarly, the Orthodox Jew and those brought up in the faith of Islam. However, it is important that faith should be taught from conviction. That is the essence of religious education. That issue also arises on the question of the retention of voluntary schools, on which I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle.
The numbers of declared vacancies for teachers of religious education is probably an underestimate, since too often the establishment for a religious education teacher has been allowed to lapse and the job is done as an extra by others. Even those teaching partly or mainly religious education are not necessarily committed to the faith that they are teaching. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, only 29 per cent. of those now teaching religious education are qualified in the subject. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great need for more religious education teachers, both qualified and committed to the subject.
The Christian faith needs to be taught by a committed practising Christian; the Jewish faith by a practising Jew and so on. Children should be taught tolerance and respect for other religions, but their teaching must reinforce their own living faith from which a real tolerance will develop. There is a tolerance of strength, which is good, and there is a tolerance of weakness which means that one has no values and that there is no structure upon which judgments can be made.
It is sometimes said that we are no longer a religious or Christian country, that religious education is an anachronism in the world of today and that parents do not want their children taught RE anyway. Let me say quite

categorically that all the surveys and all the evidence show that the vast majority of parents, whatever their religious practice, want their children taught their religion. The parents may no longer go to church, or not very often; they may or may not still hold to the basic tenets of their faith. However, quite rightly, they want their children to learn the faith of their fathers; to know and to understand the tenets of that faith. It is then up to each one of us whether or not we accept that faith; whether or not we accept God himself.
It is worth remembering that more children go to church or chapel on a Sunday in this country than watch or play football on a Saturday. The argument that not everyone watches or plays football never stops it being taught in our schools. It would be equally stupid to say that because not everyone goes to church on Sunday religion should not be taught to our children.
Religious education is important, both to the child as an individual and to the society of which that child is a part. Religious education was rightly made compulsory under the law for all children of school age in this country, and it will remain so.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North about the provision of religious education teachers. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle raised a point about voluntary schools. Indeed, we held a debate on that about three weeks ago. What we need, and need desperately, is a greater commitment on the part of all of us and, dare I say it, especially on the part of the churches towards the teaching of the faith, clearly and with commitment. I do not need to refer to liberalism and religion. Of course, I mean no disrespect to the Liberal Party. However, there is a vague mish-mash of blancmange permissiveness. Nevertheless, children want a structure in which they can believe. For most, but not all, that means the Christian faith and the faith of our fathers. However, for others it will mean their faith and values.
The Government have such a commitment and will continue to be committed to religious education.

Unemployment (North-West Norfolk)

3 pm

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: On 24 July 1978 the present Minister of State, Treasury, then only the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), opened the debate on unemployment on behalf of the Conservative Opposition and accused the Labour Government—in c. 1149 of Hansard—of increasing unemployment by 25 people per hour, or by 600 people for every day of the Government's term of office since March 1974.
If that was a fair assessment of the Labour Government's achievement in combating unemployment, when, as the House will recall, no less a person than the present Leader of the Opposition was in charge of employment policy, it is fair to remind this Conservative Government that during the past three years unemployment has increased by 1,652,000, an average of 62 people per hour, or 1,509 people for each day that the Government have been in office.
My constituency is served by five employment offices. Although the boundaries of three employment office areas go beyond my constituency into the constituencies of Norfolk, North and Norfolk, South-West, the unemployment figures from them give a fair indication of what has happened within my constituency boundaries. Unemployment is now four times higher than it was when I entered the House in 1970 and has more than doubled in the three years since the Conservative Party came to office.
I shall examine the figures relating to the five areas of King's Lynn, Fakenham, Hunstanton, Swaffham and Downham Market. Whereas in March 1970 unemployment stood at 1,850, under the Conservative Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—a Government that I was proud to support—unemployment fell. By March 1974 it had fallen to 1,473. Then came the two Labour Governments between 1974 and 1979, and by March 1979 unemployment in those five areas had increase from 1,437 to 3,608. In other words, it had more than doubled. In the past three years unemployment has increased from 3,608 to 7,609. The Minister must at least bear part of the responsibility for that.
The House will recall that one of the reasons that I gave at the time for crossing the Floor of the House was the Government's inability to control the substantial increase in unemployment that had taken place during their first two years. The House needs no reminding that each individual contributing to the statistics has lost that part of his self respect that comes from employment. He has lost the sense of being needed and the ability to pay his—or indeed her—way in the world without resorting to unemployment benefit, social security benefit or assistance from the social services.
I sought this debate not only to draw attention to the general problem of unemployment and the human suffering that arises from it, but to focus the Minister's attention on our part of the country. West Norfolk has traditionally experienced levels of unemployment that were broadly consistent with the national avarages and were frequently better than the rest of the East Anglia region. Now we have levels that are consistently higher and show signs of rising still further. What is particularly worrying for me is that more than 10 per cent. of those who

are out of work in the area are under 19 and, although about 300 of them are on Government training and work experience schemes, there will be no jobs for them when they have finished. Well over half of the young unemployed have either received no training or are unlikely to receive training in the foreseeable future. For those individual boys and girls and, alas, a high proportion of those who are due to leave school now, and in the summer, the beginning of their adult life will be unforgettably blighted.
The Secretary of State for Employment on 27 January 1982 in a debate about the employment situation referred to the
shake-out of labour, aimed at and talked about so often in the past".
The Secretary of State complained that—
It happened not at a time of our choice, but at a moment dictated by events."—[Official Report, 27 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 907].
The increases in unemployment have been part of the Government's policy to control inflation without an incomes policy. My constituents wish to know what the Government propose to do to assist North-West Norfolk to overcome this most degrading and unacceptable of human problems.
Although the Government put great faith in the expectation that when the economy generally recovers unemployment will begin to decline, I believe that recovery will be slower and more difficult in West Norfolk than for the rest of the country. As old, locally established firms reduce their labour or go into voluntary liquidation there are few reasons why new firms should take their place. Communications in West Norfolk, and between West Norfolk and other centres of population such as Norwich to the east, Leicester and the industrial Midlands, Newark and the North are poor. Our rail service to London has not yet attracted the modernisation that would both speed and make more comfortable our communications with the capital. Indeed, the future of the rail link may be at risk.
Apart from the fact that my constituency has never benefited from the special assistance and incentives for industry of various types that have been available to other areas with comparable unemployment, there is a further disincentive to new companies moving into the area. It is unfortunate that 60 per cent. of the unemployed in my constituency are unskilled, and, even if there were to be a sudden resurgence in economic activity in the area, it would quickly lead to a shortage of skilled workers while the unskilled majority remained on the dole.
I should like the Government to embark on a major programme of new public works to improve our national efficiency. However, the Government are firmly committed against that policy, despite the reducing percentage of public expenditure devoted to capital projects. I shall, therefore, suggest a number of proposals that the Government might examine to assist us.
First, there should be some recognition that the East of England particularly is badly served by the trunk road network. Even within the planned public expenditure figures there is a strong case for giving a higher priority to improving the A17 and the A47. That would generate tourist traffic into the area, facilitate the passage of goods from the Midlands to our efficient docks and improve the distribution of products manufactured in the area.
Secondly, it would be helpful if the Government could examine the transport supplementary grant provisions affecting the Norfolk county council to ensure an early start to the planned improvements to the A149, which would improve access to the major resort of Hunstanton where there is currently unemployment amounting to 21·4 per cent. of the working population.
Thirdly, the Government should proceed rapidly to extend the powers available to local government to assist individual firms that were proposed by the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services on 11 February. However, before confirming these powers, will the Government reconsider the suggestion that such expenditure should be restricted to a ½p rate in any one year?
The Government must realise that in sparsely populated rural areas the cost to local authorities of providing even small industrial sites for private letting is high. Larger sites, capable of employing more than 25 people, are still badly needed in some of the principal villages in my constituency. If local authorities are prepared to play a significant part in alleviating rural unemployment, they must have not only a greater freedom to borrow, but more discretion to use the rates for supporting local industry.
The Minister will appreciate that a ½p rate in the West Norfolk district council, for example, produces only £75,000 a year. That is too small a sum to make a significant difference to the appalling unemployment rate. The Government proposal to rescind the powers available under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, other than in the inner urban areas, removes from rural local authorities the ability to use up to a 2p rate for assisting industry.
Following the Burns report, while I recognise that the Government perceive local government's responsibility for, and capacity to give, useful assistance, they are denying it the necessary resources to act alone. They have provided the Manpower Services Commission with insufficient funds to implement joint schemes, such as the community enterprise project, with local authorities.
The Government should recognise that, after agriculture, the recreation and tourist industries are the largest employers in Norfolk. Yet under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act dealing with the special development and investment areas, the resort industry in East Anglia receives no assistance. It shares that distinction only with the south coast of England.
In view of the high levels of unemployment in some coastal resorts and in the light of the redefinition of special areas due to come into force in August this year, I urge the Minister, following the representations by a delegation that I led to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when he was Secretary of State for Employment, to look again at our claim for special support for the tourist industry. Surely there is a case for dealing with incentives to tourism on a national basis to ensure that coastal resorts in Norfolk are not at a disadvantage compared with comparable resorts in most of the rest of the country.
It is common knowledge that the loss of employment from agriculture is a major cause of rural unemployment. I fear that unless action is taken in the near future to assist our local fishing industry still more jobs will be at risk. Will the Minister undertake to initiate discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider the potential for the Wash shell

fisheries? In the face of substantial competition from Holland and other European countries, our native shell fisheries are in decline, notwithstanding that the Wash is Europe's largest natural shell fishery.
Co-operation between the Government and our fishing industry in the Wash could not only produce substantial new employment opportunities, but remove the need to import shellfish, thus giving a considerable balance of payments advantage. It must be wrong, at a tune of economic difficulty, that as important a natural resource as the Wash remains unexploited.
I welcome the Development Commission's new power to designate priority areas, in the reasonable expectation that my constituency will be one, but it would be useful for the Government to discuss with the commission how it could give more rent relief over a longer period to firms that take up industrial units on joint schemes developed by the commission in partnership with the local authorities.
I invite the Government to examine carefully their proposals for new training initiatives and, in particular, their application to rural areas. I estimate that more than 20 per cent. of the eligible young in my constituency will not have the motivation to take up the opportunities that the scheme offers because of rural transport difficulties and the lack of self-confidence arising from the underachievement at school and at home of many of the most disadvantaged.
It is difficult to motivate the young to face lengthy and expensive travel in inclement weather for temporary training opportunities, when the net allowance of £21 after transport costs compares with £22·50 per week available on supplementay benefit or those who choose to stay at home. The Government should consider a standard rate of £25 for individuals on those schemes, plus a differential travel allowance so that a real incentive encourages even the least motivated to take up training places.
The levels of unemployment in various parts of my constituency range from one in seven to one in five out of work. My forecast is that there will be no significant impovement unless the Government take new initiatives that bear in mind the problems to which I have referred. At the next general election the Government's record will be judged by what they do to help us now.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on having had the good fortune to secure this Adjournment debate. I welcome the opportunity to reply at least to some of his points.
The hon. Gentleman made clear in his speech the deep concern that he feels over the difficulties that the part of the world that he represents is facing. Alas, north and west Norfolk have historically had a consistently high level of unemployment, with seasonally higher winter levels because of the area's extreme dependence on agriculture and tourism. However, I in no way wish to shelter behind that long-standing problem or underestimate the problems that unemployment brings.
Unemployment is not only a waste of valuable—indeed unique—human resources but has deeply harmful effects both on those who are unable to find a job and on the community as a whole. It is because unemployment causes so many problems that we are determined to find an


effective remedy for it rather than to continue with the half-hearted and half-baked methods that seem so obviously to have failed in the past.
We do not believe that the problem will simply go away if we spend more on subsidised services and jobs that cannot be considered as real, lasting and viable. That has been tried many times before. Far from improving the position, it has led to escalating inflation, deteriorating competitiveness and an ever-rising trend of unemployment.
It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman of this. I shall make a couple of historical allusions. The hon. Gentleman was perceptive enough to go back into history and study the roots of the problems. In the decade from 1970 to 1980, which embraced both Labour and Conservative Governments, domestic expenditure in the British economy rose by over 300 per cent. However, in those 10 years real output rose by no more than 25 per cent. That means that the overwhelming mass of money spent both by individuals and the Government went straight into higher prices and not into output. Therefore, increasing expenditure is no simple and automatic remedy.
Our policies are aimed at developing a soundly based economy, which means, among other things, bringing down inflation. As inflation is reduced and productivity continues to improve, British firms will become more competitive and so able to offer goods and services at home and abroad that people want to buy at prices that they are prepared to pay. That is the only way to create the new and secure jobs that we all seek, both in Norfolk and throughout the country. What we need is steady, sustained growth. That is no quick and painless short cut, least of all in a period of world recession.
Again I shall make a short digression for which I make no apology, following the hon. Gentleman's reference to the historical past and that major aspect of his personal history that led to his moving from the Conservative to the Opposition Benches. It was in the context of unemployment that the hon. Gentleman made that move. I again remind the hon. Gentleman of a crucial fact which explains unemployment and use it absolutely to rebut his allegation that the Government were promoting, sustaining or conniving to keep unemployment as a substitute for a prices and incomes policy. In the five years between 1975 and 1980—to consider the position as a league table—unit labour costs in Britain doubled. In Canada they went up by three-quarters, in the United States by one-half, in Germany by one-fifth, and in Japan they did not go up. There is a spectrum in which British unit labour costs doubled, and through that spectrum our competitors did better, right down to the Japanese whose unit labour costs did not increase.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he and I were elected to the House in 1979 it was almost simultaneous with another huge increase in world oil prices that led to the present international recession. Britain fell almost at the first fence because of our gigantic lack of competitiveness. That is the explanation for this gusher of unemployment that the previous Labour Government opened as a result of their failure to increase productivity with wage increases. The Government are trying to close that gusher, but it is more difficult to close than to open it.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the scenario I have described shows that there is structural unemployment in my area? That is different from unemployment that is generated as part of the ebb and flow of the economic cycle. We have lost jobs that will not come back and that cannot be replaced by new jobs without public sector capital investment.

Mr. Alison: I acknowledge that there are structural difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's area. Like limbs that are weak, such areas will only get strong if the heartland is strong. There must be a strong, solid heartland for the extremities to profit and benefit. However, I shall come to some of the actions that we hope to take that will encourage the hon. Gentleman.
There are encouraging signs that our policies are succeeding. Inflation is falling. Total output rose in both the third and fourth quarters of last year, and manufacturing productivity—the key element to which I referred earlier—rose by 10 per cent. during 1981. The number of strikes in 1980–81 was less than in any year since 1941, and the number of working days lost is only one-third of the average for the past 10 years. Labour unit costs have stabilised, and workers are now showing a new sense of realism about the effects of future wage demands on their jobs.
Even in Norfolk the picture is not all doom and gloom. There are jobs to be had in the area, even in the present difficult circumstances. In fact, in the past 12 months over 3,400 people in north and west Norfolk were placed in jobs by the MSC's employment service. Many more than that will have found new jobs for themselves. Expansions are taking place in the area and new jobs are being created, although not at as fast a rate as we would have liked.
The Government have recently announced changes that will enable the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas to respond even more readily to the needs of the rural community. All the areas, except King's Lynn, fall within a Development Commission priority area and the commission has a factory building programme at eight locations in the area which comprises 34 units, of which 20 have been completed. In addition, the construction of 14 workshops has recently been approved. Within the priority areas, CoSIRA's advisory, training and loan services are now available to small retailers as well as small manufacturing and service firms.
The Budget provided further help for small businesses in addition to the large number of measures—75, no less—taken previously. The enterprise package included further reduction in weight of corporation tax; further increases in VAT registration limits; increase in global amount available for loans under the loan guarantee scheme this year; and a doubling of the investment limit under the business start-up scheme to £20,000 a year. The new measures will encourage start-ups and existing firms.
As I have already said, future job prospects in Norfolk, like everywhere else, will depend largely on our efforts to get the economy right. That will take time. The difficulties are deep-rooted. Meanwhile, we are protecting those hardest hit, particularly young people, through our programme of special employment and training measures. About 630 people in the Norfolk area are currently benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme and the


community enterprise programme. Nearly 4,500 young people have entered the youth opportunities programme since 1 April last year.
The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to expenditure on roads. It is one of the structural aspects of East Anglia about which he is particularly concerned. I understand that construction work on improvements to the A17 trunk road is progressing reasonably well. Local roads, including the A149, are the responsibility of the county council, aided by the transport supplementary grant from the Government. Norfolk did extremely well in the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1982–83 which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in December. The whole of Norfolk's bid was accepted for grant. It was one of only a handful of counties thus favoured. It is up to Norfolk to get on with its programmes in accordance with its priorities.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to fishing, which is again of considerable importance to the county. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is fully aware of the problems of the industry, not least in the hon. Gentleman's area. We currently have exclusive access to six miles from baseline off the Norfolk coast. In the negotiations for a revised common fisheries policy we remain determined to secure a basically exclusive 12-mile zone to safeguard our coastal fishing industry. That will at least provide a framework for security against which we may hope for a spontaneous generation for fishing in what is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly and properly knows, an area of enormous fishing potential.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the prospects for youngsters. We both have a profound concern for the motivation and prospects of young people. The present predicament of young people is partly a product of lack of access to training. Their chances of escaping from that predicament are much bleaker without training. That is why we are concentrating our efforts in that direction.
The White Paper "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action", which was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment last December, contains far-reaching proposals for industrial training, and particularly the major proposal designed specifically to help unemployed young people. The aim is

that the new youth training scheme should provide a full year's foundation training for all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers. Everyone will be given the chance of a 12-month course, which will build on the experience gained from the current youth opportunities programme, which, since its introduction by our predecessors in 1978, has helped more than 1 million unemployed young people to gain work experience in preparation for working life. In the past four years the YOP has grown to between three and four times its original size. This year it will have about 550,000 entrants.
In Norfolk county alone almost 4,500 young people entered YOP between 1981 and the end of February, compared with little more than half that number in the whole of last year. We have nearly doubled the number of entrants. In the local authority districts of north and west Norfolk, almost 1,300 young people entered the programme during the same period, compared with just under 800 in the whole of the previous year. That shows that youngsters are taking up opportunities that will serve them well. The figures also show the magnificent effort made by the Manpower Services Commission and local scheme sponsors, many of whom the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know personally. They have done much to ease the plight of the young unemployed in Norfolk.
Mention should also be made of the efforts of Norfolk county council, West Norfolk district council and North Norfolk district council in working with the commission s area staff and the careers service in the area.
West Norfolk district council's 40-place training workshop in King's Lynn is an excellent example of its kind. It is one of 15 workshops in the country offering information technology modules as part of a pilot scheme. The district council also provides 60 other places of various types, all of which will be suitable for conversion to new-style places and have been approved as such already.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West referred, in an important part of his speech, to local authorities engaged in industrial development——

It being half past Three o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 1 April, till Monday 19 April.